f.l  r:  V  |»T 

'T'nriiv  (l[  sf 
I’  r,  ;  /.  < t (. 


REPORT 


OF  THE 


Sewerage  Commission 


OF  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

CONSISTING  OF 

MENDES  COHEN 

F.  H.  HAMBLETON 

E.  L.  BARTLETT 

APPOINTED  BY 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  OF  THE  CITY  COUNCIL 

APPROVED  25TH  MAY,  1893 


BALTIMORE 

1897 


V  f!  /  (i  fl  I  J 
a  'SO  YllOI^IKfl 
/  YJ  Oil 


PRESS  OF 

THE  FRIEDENWALD  COMPANY 
BALTIMORE,  MD. 


WINKLER  NOV  1  g  1842 


V. 


U>  2.  3. 


[  n  )  /  |  v 

piiivflllir  or  \w\U 


(3  a/h 

£  O  )P  '  *2- 


i/fl  I,  / 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


REPORT  OF  THE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

Appointment  of  tlie  Commission .  r 

The  Work  Undertaken  by  the  Commission . .  () 

General  Features  of  the  City  with  Reference  to  its  Sewerage. .  .  .  .  .T  ' .  . .  .  .  .  u 
Population . 

Water  Supply .  '  '  ^ 

Climatic  Conditions .  ^ 

General  Drainage . 

Storm-Water  Drainage .  . 

Cesspools  and  Water  Closets . ’  * . 

Final  Disposal  of  Nightsoil . .  . 

Volume  of  Sewage... . 

Sewage  Disposal .  “ 

Dilution .  . 

_  . . .  24 

>  Boston .  0„ 

Chicago . "  27 

Chemical  Precipitation . 

.  Jo 

Glasgow .  30 

Worcester .  ^ 

Ferozone  and  Polarite  Process . 

Intermittent  Filtration  and  Irrigation  of  Crops .  35 

Parls . '  V.'V.'.T.  39 

Berlin .  40 

Melbourne . . . 

Investigation  of  the  Problem . 

*********•••••••••••••««  40 

<  Cost  of  the  Several  Projects  as  presented  by  the  Consulting  Engineers.  .  49 

:  Relative  Merits  of  the  Various  Methods  of  Disposal . . .  50 

Dilution . 

.  50 

Oyster  Interests . . j . 

Chemical  Precipitation .  ^ 

Filtration .  ^ 

District  and  Lateral  Sewers .  ^ 

Relative  Cost  of  the  Several  Schemes .  00 

Investigation  of  the  Currents  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay .  g4 

^-Consideration  of  Dilution  Project,  A,  as  modified  by  Results  of  the 

Study  of  the  Currents  of  the  Bay .  70 

^Comparison  of  the  Cost  of  Projects  K  and  C .  ’  73 

Effect  of  a  Discharge  of  the  Sewage  into  the  Waters  of  the  Bay  under 

Project  K .  75 

^  Comparison  of  Piojects  Iv  and  C  for  Baltimore  with  the  Systems  of 

some  other  Cities . 

.  7o 


! i 77390 


4 


CONTENTS. 


Conclusions .  78 

Method  of  Meeting  the  Cost  of  the  System  Recommended .  81 

Recommendations .  84 

Appendix  A. 

Description  of  Interceptors — Project  K .  89 


Appendix  B. 

Storm-Water  Drainage .  95 

Existing  Drains .  97 

Description  of  Drains  .  99 

Adequacy  of  Drains .  106 

Suggestions  as  to  the  Improvement  of  Improperly  Designed 

Drains  .  115 

Extensions  to  the  Present  Drainage  System  .  116 

List  of  Rainfalls  of  Great  Intensity .  119 

Appendix  C. 

Report  of  the  Consulting  Engineers  . . .  123 

A.  Introductory  Remarks .  125 

B.  Object  to  be  obtained .  126 

C.  General  Topography  and  Geology .  127 

D.  Population .  130 

E.  Water  Supply,  Sewage  and  Ground  Water  .  132 

F.  Run-olf  from  Storms .  135 

G.  Existing  Sewers .  140 

II.  Modern  Methods  of  Sewage  Disposal .  142 

I.  Dilution .  143 

J.  Precipitation .  151 

K.  Filtration .  157 

L.  Comparison  . 162 

M.  Methods  of  Collection  .  164 

N.  Separate  System  . 165 

O.  Principal  Sewers  and  Districts .  167 

P.  Pumping  Station  and  Discharge  Mains .  174 

Q.  Elements  of  Design  .  180 

R.  Storm  Drainage  System . 190 

S.  Sub-Drainage  System .  194 

T.  Estimates  of  Cost  of  the  Sewerage  System .  195 

U.  Recommendations  .  197 

V.  Appendix  I.  Geology  of  Baltimore  and  adjacent  Region .  199 

W.  “  II.  List  of  Rain-falls  . 204 

X.  “  III.  Capacity  of  a  few  Drains  and  the  probable  future  Run-off  209 

Y.  “  IV.  Estimates  of  Cost : 

Construction  .  209 

Maintenance  .  213 

Z.  “  V.  List  of  Plans .  219 

Appendix  D. 

Report  of  General  Wm.  P.  Craighill . 1 .  221 


LIST  OF  PLATES. 

I.  Diagram  of  Population. 

II.  Proposed  Locations  of  Outfall  Sewer. 

III.  Profiles  of  Interceptors — Dilution  Project. 

IV.  Diagram  of  Costs — Projects  A,  B,  C  and  D. 

V.  “  comparing  Projects  K  and  C  with  Sewerage  of  other  Cities. 

VI.  “  “  cost  of  “  “  “  “  “  “  “  “  “ 

VII.  Storm- Water  Drains. 

VIII.  Traces  of  all  Floats  from  A,  B,  C,  E  and  F. 

IX.  “  “  “  “  K. 

X.  Diagrams  showing  Probable  Dilution. 

XI.  Diagram  of  Maximum  Rates  of  Rainfall. 

• 

A.  Map  showing  Sewerage  Districts,  Intercepting  Sewers,  and  Main  District 

Sewers  for  Dilution  Project. 

B.  Map  showing  Location  of  Main  Outfall  Sewer;  also  Location  of  Precipita¬ 

tion  Tanks. 

C.  Profiles  and  Sections  of  Outfall  Sewer,  also  Plan,  Profile  and  Section  of 

Siphon  under  Bear  Creek. 

D.  Plan  of  Settling  Basin,  Gate  House  and  Outfall. 

E.  Plan  of  Precipitation  Tanks. 

F.  Plan  of  Pumping  Station  for  Dilution  Project. 

G.  Map  showing  Sewerage  Districts,  Intercepting  Sewers,  and  Main  District 

Sewers,  for  Filtration  Project. 

H.  Map  showing  Filtration  Fields  at  Glen  Burnie. 

I.  Plan  and  Profile' of  Discharge  Mains;  also  Sections  of  Tunnel  and  River 

Crossing. 

J.  Sections  of  Intercepting  Sewers  and  Siphons. 

K.  Profile  of  Intercepting  Sewers. 

L.  Plan  of  Pumping  Station  for  Filtration  Project. 

M.  General  Map,  showing  Outlines  of  Filtration  Project. 

N.  Rainfall  Diagram. 

O.  Method  of  Construction  of  Filtration  Beds. 


V  II  I.  II  U  1 .1 

1(1  r,  1.1 .11  :i(i  \’U(1|!:IVII',II 

,  /.  (  I  l.u 


REPORT 

OF  .THE 

Sewerage  Commission. 


To  the  Honorable ,  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore: 

The  Sewerage  Commission  has  the  honor  to  submit  a  full 
report  of  its  investigations  and  recommendations  in  regard 
to  the  sewerage  of  the  City  of  Baltimore. 

The  Commission  was  appointed  under  Resolution  No.  189 
of  Session  1892-93,  as  follows : 

“  Resolution  authorizing  the  Mayor  to  appoint  a  commis¬ 
sion,  composed  of  three  persons,  to  examine  into  a  more  per¬ 
fect  system  of  sewerage  for  the  City  of  Baltimore. 

“  Whereas ,  The  adoption  of  some  scientific  system  of  sewer¬ 
age  in  this  city  has  long  been  recognized  as  a  necessity,  and 
public  interest  has  of  late  been  awakened  as  to  this  and  other 
sanitary  precautions  by  the  adoption  of  National  Quarantine 
regulations  on  account  of  epidemics  in  other  countries,  and 
the  necessity  of  providing  against  their  outbreak  here,  and 
we  believe  that  some  effective  action  should  be  secured  while 
public  interest  is  aroused  to  the  importance  of  the  question; 

“  Resolved ,  That  the  Mayor  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  appoint  a  commission,  to  be  composed  of  three 
persons,  who  shall  examine  into  the  necessity  for  a  more 
perfect  system  of  sewerage  for  the  City  of  Baltimore,  and 
report  the  result  of  their  investigations  to  the  City  Council 
of  Baltimore  at  its  adjourned  session,  together  with  their 
recommendations  as  to  the  system  to  be  adopted  and  the 
mode  of  carrying  the  same  into  effect;  the  said  commission 
to  act  without  compensation.” 

“  Approved  May  25th,  1893.” 


“  Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe,  Mayor.” 


0 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Under  this  resolution  the  Mayor  appointed  as  the  commis¬ 
sion  Messrs.  Mendes  Cohen,  F.  H.  Hambleton  and  Henry  T. 
Douglas. 

The  Commission  organized  on  the  19th  July  following,  by 
electing  Mr.  Mendes  Cohen,  chairman,  and  Mr.  H.  T.  Douglas 
as  secretary  pro  tem. 

On  the  26tli  September  of  the  same  year  it  so  far  complied 
with  that  portion  of  the  resolution  creating  it,  as  required  it 
to  report  to  the  adjourned  session  of  the  City  Council. 

In  its  report  of  that  date  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council, 
it  stated  “  that,  in  its  judgment,  a  thorough  system  of  sewer¬ 
age  is  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  city,  and  that  measures  to 
effect  it  ought  not  to  be  longer  delayed.” 

The  report  enlarged  upon  the  conditions  and  information 
necessarily  precedent  to  any  determination  of  the  proper 
system  upon  which  the  sewerage  should  be  effected,  and 
called  attention  to  the  entire  omission  of  any  appropriation 
to  meet  the  necessary  cost  of  investigations. 

An  appropriation  was  subsequently  made,  under  Besolution 
No.  212  of  same  session,  as  follows: 

“  Besolution  appropriating  a  sum  of  money  to  meet  the 
expenses  of  the  Commission  on  Sewerage. 

“  Resolved  by  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  of  Baltimore ,  That 
the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  is 
necessary,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated,  to  meet 
the  expenditure  required  by  the  Commission  appointed  under 
the  provisions  of  a  joint  resolution  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore,  approved  May  25th,  1893,  authorizing 
the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  examine  into  the  neces¬ 
sity  for  a  more  perfect  system  of  sewerage  for  the  City  of 
Baltimore. 

“  Resolved ,  That  all  bills  presented  by  the  Commission  under 
the  resolution  shall  be  first  approved  by  the  President  or 
Acting  President  of  the  Commission,  with  his  signature,  and 
then,  after  approval  by  the  Mayor,  be  presented  to  the  Comp¬ 
troller,  who  shall  draw  his  warrant  for  payment  thereof  on 
the  City  Begister;  the  amounts  to  the  extent  of  the  appropria¬ 
tion  to  be  paid  from  any  money  not  otherwise  appropriated 
in  the  City  Treasury.” 

“  Approved  October  14th,  1893.” 


“ Ferdinand  C.  Latiiobe,  Mayor” 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


7 


On  19tli  October,  1893,  the  Commission  organized  for  work 
by  the  securing  of  office  and  working  rooms  in  the  Equitable 
Building. 

The  first  preliminary  to  the  operations  of  the  Commission 
was  deemed  to  be  a  relief  map  of  the  city,  on  a  scale  to  make 
possible  a  study  of  its  drainage  areas. 

For  the  construction  of  such  a  map,  the  city  was  found 
to  possess  no  adequate  data.  In  fact,  a  general  topograph¬ 
ical  survey  of  the  city  had  only  just  been  undertaken,  and  its 
results  might  not  be  available  for  the  purposes  of  this  Com¬ 
mission  without  a  very  long  and  undesirable  delay. 

To  save  time,  the  Commission  was  glad  to  avail  itself  of  the 
use  of  contour  maps  of  the  city  and  its  environs  prepared 
for  the  use  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  TJ.  S.  A.,  during  the  late 
war,  which  Colonel  Wm.  P.  Craigliill,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
the  officer  then  in  charge  of  this  district,  now  Brigadier-Gen¬ 
eral  and  late  Chief  of  Engineers,  was  so  obliging  as  to  place 
temporarily  at  our  service. 

With  this  aid  our  preliminary  studies  were  effected;  but  the 
determination  of  many  questions  involved  in  the  conclusions 
of  this  report,  has  required  the  more  precise  data  obtainable 
only  as  the  topographical  survey  progressed. 

Reports  of  progress  were  made  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Coun¬ 
cil  under  date  of  January  10th,  1894,  and  January  2d,  1895. 
The  latter  report  showed  a  total  expenditure  to  December 
31st,  1894,  of  |3,231.97,  principally  for  office  work  in  the  col¬ 
lection  of  data  and  the  making  of  maps.  It  stated: 

"It  has  been  thought  desirable  by  your  Honor,  and  was 
probably  intended  by  the  Joint  Resolution  appointing  the 
Commission  that  its  final  report,  recommending  the  system 
to  be  adopted,  should  be  accompanied  by  an  approximate 
estimate  of  the  cost  of  carrying  the  same  into  execution.” 
*  *  *  “To  pay  for  the  services  of  consulting  engineers  and 
to  meet  the  expense  of  a  detailed  investigation  of  their  plan 
to  be  recommended  with  a  view  to  an  estimate  of  its  cost 
the  Commission  deems  it  necessary  that  a  further  appropria¬ 
tion  of  twenty  thousand  dollars  be  placed  at  its  disposal.” 

This  requirement  was  met  by  Ordinance  No.  25  of  the  Ses¬ 
sion  of  1894-95. 

“An  Ordinance  appropriating  a  sum  of  money  to  meet  the 
expenses  of  the  Commission  on  Sewerage. 


8 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


“  Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  and  ordained  by  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  of  Baltimore,  That  in  addition  to  the  unexpended 
balance  of  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  sixty-eight 
dollars  and  three  cents  of  the  five  thousand  dollars  appro¬ 
priated  under  resolution  approved  October  14,  1893,  the  sum 
of  twenty  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  is  neces¬ 
sary,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  appropriated  to  meet  the 
expenditures  required  by  the  Commission  appointed  under 
the  provisions  of  a  joint  resolution  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  of  Baltimore,  approved  May  25,  1893,  authorizing 
the  appointment  of  a  Commission  to  examine  into  the  neces¬ 
sity  for  a  more  perfect  system  of  sewerage  for  the  City  of 
Baltimore. 

“  Section  2.  Be  it  enacted  and  ordained,  That  all  bills  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  Commission  under  this  ordinance  shall  be  first 
approved  by  the  President  or  Acting  President  of  the  Com¬ 
mission  with  signature,  and  then,  after  approval  by  the 
Mayor,  be  presented  to  the  Comptroller,  who  shall  draw  his 
warrant  for  the  payment  thereof  on  the  City  Register;  the 
amount  to  the  extent  of  the  appropriation  to  be  paid  from  any 
money  not  otherwise  appropriated  in  the  City  Treasury.” 

“  Approved  March  29,  1895.” 

“ Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe,  Mayor” 

With  the  aid  of  this  further  appropriation  the  services  of 
consulting  engineers  were  engaged,  necessary  surveys  were 
made  and  the  investigations  generally  continued. 

Further  annual  reports  of  progress  have  been  made  on 
January  6th,  1896,  and  January  12th,  1897. 

On  May  22d,  1896,  Col.  Douglas  announced,  to  the  regret 
of  his  colleagues,  that,  owing  to  the  pressure  of  professional 
engagements  upon  his  time,  he  had  that  day  forwarded  to 
the  Mayor  his  resignation  as  a  member  of  the  Sewerage 
Commission. 

On  July  25th,  following,  the  Mayor  appointed  Mr.  Edward 
L.  Bartlett  to  fill  the  vacancy  on  the  Commission. 

On  July  27th,  1896,  Mr.  Bartlett  met  with  the  Commissiou, 
and,  Mr.  Cohen  having  resigned  the  chairmanship,  the  Com¬ 
mission  was  reorganized  by  Mr.  Cohen’s  re-election  to  the 
chair,  and  as  thus  constituted,  it  has  since  continued  its 
work. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


0 


The  surveys  required  by  the  consulting  engineers  for  an 
investigation  of  a  possible  sewage  outfall  in  Anne  Arundel 
county,  together  with  the  maps  and  plans  to  elucidate  it, 
were  completed  and  forwarded  to  those  gentlemen  in  August, 
1896. 

Numerous  test  pits  were  sunk  to  demonstrate  the  character 
of  the  soil  available  for  filtration  of  the  sewage  in  Anne 
Arundel  county,  and  samples  thereof  were  secured  and  ar¬ 
ranged  in  the  office  for  reference. 

An  expert  was  also  employed  to  ascertain  and  report  the 
value  of  the  land  probably  required  for  filtration  purposes. 

On  November  30th,  the  text  of  the  joint  report  of  the  con¬ 
sulting  engineers  was  received  and  a  few  weeks  later  the 
maps  and  plans  to  illustrate  it  were  in  hand. 

Since  then  your  Commission  has  been  diligently  engaged 
in  discussing  the  several  plans,  the  result  of  its  labors  being 
now  submitted. 

THE  WORK  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 

An  investigation  and  determination  of  a  plan  for  a  sew¬ 
erage  system  requires,  in  addition  to  a  topographical  plat  of 
the  area  to  be  sewered,  similar  plats  of  such  adjacent  dis¬ 
tricts  as  may  be  traversed  by  the  outfall  sewers,  or  otherwise 
made  use  of  in  the  final  disposal  of  the  sewage. 

A  knowledge  is  also  required  of  the  geological  formation 
of  the  areas  under  consideration,  in  order  to  estimate  the 
character  of  the  material  to  be  traversed  by  the  various 
sewers,  both  for  collection  and  discharge,  and  more  particu¬ 
larly  for  the  purpose  of  determining  in  regard  to  the  feasi¬ 
bility  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  through  filtration  upon  land. 

It  is  with  pleasure  that  the  Commission  here  records  its 
sense  of  the  assistance  rendered  to  it  in  this  branch  of  the 
investigation  by  Professor  Wm.  Bullock  Clark,  State  Geolo¬ 
gist  of  Maryland. 

Besides  a  personal  examination  of  localities  in  company 
with  the  Commission  and  its  engineers,  Professor  Clark 
further  aided  the  Commission  by  facilitating,  through  his 
official  co-operation,  the  survey  and  other  examination  of 
lands  thought  suitable  for  the  outfall  of  the  sewage,  and  has 
supplied  our  Consulting  Engineer,  Mr.  Hering,  with  a  con¬ 
densed  summary  of  the  features  characteristic  of  the  region. 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


10 


This  description  of  the  geology  of  Baltimore  and  the  adja¬ 
cent  region  accompanies  this  Report  as  an  appendix  to  the 
Report  of  the  Consulting  Engineers. 

The  next  consideration,  and  the  first  question  to  be  deter¬ 
mined  in  the  general  discussion  of  the  subject,  is  as  to 
whether  the  system  shall  be  Combined  or  Separate. 

A  Combined  System  is  understood  to  mean  the  disposal 
through  one  set  of  sewers  of  the  storm  water  falling  upon 
the  streets,  house-tops  and  open  spaces  of  the  area  under 
consideration,  together  with  all  the  water-borne  domestic 
waste,  and  more  or  less  of  that  from  manufacturing  estab¬ 
lishments. 

A  Separate  System  is  understood  to  mean  one  in  which 
storm  water  is  excluded  from  the  sewers  devoted  to  house 
drainage,  and  is  otherwise  disposed  of. 

The  solution  of  this  question  depends  upon  various  con¬ 
siderations,  all  of  which  need  not  be  enumerated  here. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  your  Commission  has  been 
advised  and  has  concluded,  that  the  interests  of  the  City  of 
Baltimore  will  be  best  served  by  adopting  the  separate 
system,  because: 

First.  The  City  has  already  constructed  some  thirty-three 
miles  of  sewers  or  drains  for  carrying  off  storm  water  at  a 
cost  of  not  far  from  $4,000,000.  These  discharge  directly 
or  indirectly,  and  usually  by  the  most  direct  lines,  into  the 
harbor,  and  either  answer,  or  can  be  made  to  answer,  the 
purposes  of  their  construction. 

Second.  These  sewers,  which  will  hereafter  in  this  Re¬ 
port  be  referred  to  as  Drains  or  as  Storm-water  Drains ,  were 
not  designed  for  carrying  domestic  sewage,  are  not  adapted  to 
such  purpose,  and  even  if  they  were,  the  discharge  of  domes¬ 
tic  sewage  into  the  harbor  is  undesirable  for  reasons  which 
will  be  given  later  on. 

Assuming  then,  that  the  separate  system  is  that  to  be 
adopted,  we  must  next  ascertain  the  volume  of  sewage  which 
will  accumulate  daily,  and  which  must  therefore,  each  day, 
be  transported  to  the  outfall  point.  This  volume  is  depen¬ 
dent,  first,  upon  the  population;  second,  upon  the  water  sup¬ 
ply,  or  rather,  upon  the  total  water  consumption  of  the  entire 
population;  and,  third,  upon  the  amount  of  storm  or  ground 
water  which  will  find  access  to  this  separate  system,  not- 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


11 


withstanding  the  fact  that  the  bulk  of  the  storm  water  is 
carried  off  separately. 

Having  ascertained  the  volume  of  sewage  to  be  provided 
for,  the  next  question,  and  for  the  City  of  Baltimore,  perhaps 
the  most  important  question  of  all,  is:  What  shall  be  done 
with  it?  And  where  and  how  shall  it  be  discharged,  so  that 
the  disposal  shall  be  final,  or,  at  any  rate,  such  that  no  further 
inconvenience,  not  readily  obviated  if  necessary,  need  be 
apprehended  from  it? 

The  elements  and  special  conditions  leading  up  to  the 
determination  of  these  questions  will  now  be  considered 
separately. 

GENERAL  FEATURES  OF  THE  CITY  WITH  REFER¬ 
ENCE  TO  ITS  SEWERAGE. 

The  City  of  Baltimore  includes  within  its  present  bounda¬ 
ries  some  thirty-two  square  miles  of  surface  having  an  ex¬ 
treme  breadth  from  north  to  south  of  six  miles,  and  from 
east  to  west  of  about  six  and  one-fourth  miles.  Of  this  total, 
the  paved  and  built-up  portion  of  the  city  may  be  estimated 
at  eight  square  miles;  the  partially  built-up  or  suburban  por¬ 
tion  at  five  square  miles;  the  rural  portion,  including  1,137 
acres  of  public  parks,  at  sixteen  and  a  half  square  miles,  and 
the  water  area  at  about  two  and  a  half  square  miles.* 

About  one-lialf  of  its  southern  boundary  is  formed  by  the 
tidewaters  of  Patapsco  River  affording  a  harbor  with  up¬ 
wards  of  twelve  miles  of  water  frontage.  The  land  rises 
gradually  from  the  flat  ground  surrounding  the  water  front 
to  an  extreme  height  of  4G0  feet  at  the  northwest  corner  of 
the  city,  and  is  intersected  by  numerous  lines  of  natural 
drainage  to  the  harbor.  Of  these,  the  most  important  is 
Jones7  Falls,  which  traverses  the  center  of  the  city  in  a 
general  direction  south  by  east,  and  having  at  the  northern 
boundary  an  elevation  above  tide  of  about  160  feet. 

This  stream,  where  it  flows  through  the  built-up  portion 
of  the  city,  say  for  one-half  its  course  within  the  city  limits, 
has  its  open  channel  confined  between  walls  of  masonry  at 
a  width  of  from  sixty  feet  to  one  hundred  feet.  It  has 
hitherto  afforded  the  most  available  means  of  draining  the 


*  Report  of  the  Topographical  Survey. of  Baltimore  for  1894. 


12 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


districts  tributary  to  it;  and  has  for  long  years  been  a  source 
of  continued  nuisance  and  expense,  due  to  the  collection  of 
offensive  matter  in  its  open  channel,  to  the  necessity  for  keep¬ 
ing  the  channel  unobstructed  for  the  passage  of  floods,  and  to 
the  difficulty  of  dredging  it,  which  involves  the  use  of  special 
apparatus  capable  of  passing  under  the  numerous  bridges. 

Harford  Bun  and  Harris  Creek  to  the  eastward  of  Jones’ 
Falls,  and  Chatsworth  Bun  and  Schroeder’s  Eun  to  the  west¬ 
ward  of  that  stream  have  been  arched  over  in  past  years, 
and  are  converted  into  storm-water  drains. 

Gwynn’s  Falls  and  its  tributary,  Gwynn’s  Eun,  are  to  the 
extreme  west  of  the  present  built-up  portion  of  the  city. 
Their  course  is,  for  some  three  and  a  half  or  four  miles, 
through  the  western  and  southwestern  section  of  the  city 
area. 

The  advancing  growth  of  the  city  has  not  yet  seriously 

affected  the  main  stream,  but  Gwynn’s  Eun  already  serves 

as  the  means  of  draining  an  extensive  section,  including 

numerous  butchering  establishments  only  recently  brought 

within  the  citv  limits. 

«/ 

The  Patapsco  Eiver,  on  which  Baltimore  is  situated,  is 
but  a  broad  estuary  or  arm  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  for  the  12 
miles  between  the  city  and  the  bay,  with  so  small  a  fresh 
water  flow  as  to  make  no  appreciable  current,  and  with  a 
mean  rise  and  fall  of  tide  which  does  not  exceed  sixteen 
inches.* 

The  winds  are  the  most  powerful  agency  affecting  the 
regimen  of  the  harbor.  A  heavy  southeast  wind  raises  the 
water  some  six  feet  above  mean  tide;  whilst  on  the  other 
hand,  a  strong  northwester  may  drive  the  water  out  of  the 
river,  leaving  it  some  five  feet  below  the  mean. 

Under  these  conditions  it  will  readily  be  seen  that  what¬ 
ever  solid  matter  is  permitted  to  enter  the  harbor  remains 
there,  sinking  to  the  bottom  or  floating  on  the  surface  as  the 
case  may  be,  but  never  getting  far  away  from  the  point  of 
entrance;  so  that  sewage  and  other  filth,  if  allowed  to  enter 
with  storm  water,  are  not  in  this  way  gotten  rid  of,  but 
continue  a  source  of  nuisance  and,  after  befouling  the  harbor 
and  silting  up  the  channels,  the  accumulating  matter  has  to 
be  removed  in  the  end  by  dredging. 


*See  Coast  Chart  No.  136,  U.  S.  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


13 


For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  is  evident  that  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  sewage  into  the  harbor  should  be  avoided. 

POPULATION. 

By  the  United  States  Census  of  1890,  the  population  of 
the  City  of  Baltimore,  including  that  of  the  recently  annexed 
portion  of  Baltimore  county,  is  placed  at  434,151. 

By  the  Police  Census  of  the  year  1896,  it  appears  to  be 
542,754,  and  by  that  of  1897,  556,717.  By  the  estimates  of  the 
Health  Department  for  July,  1896,  it  is  given  as  506,398. 
This  Commission,  however,  from  the  best  information  avail¬ 
able,  believes  it  to  be  fairly  estimated  at  550,000.  It  is  not, 
however,  for  the  population  of  to-day  only  that  the  proposed 
system  of  sewerage  is  to  be  provided.  Your  Commission  has 
not  thought  its  duty  would  be  properly  met,  if  it  estimated 
for  less  than  the  probable  population  at  the  end  of  the  next 
thirty  years;  at  which  time,  if  the  present  ratio  of  increase 
continues,  we  believe  the  city  will  include  not  far  from  one 
million  of  people. 

A  consideration  of  the  probabilities  in  this  regard  may 
be  aided  by  reference  to  a  diagram  (Plate  I)  appended  to 
this  report. 

WATER  SUPPLY. 

Baltimore  is  furnished  with  an  abundant  supply  of  good 
water  from  two  sources. 

First.  Jones*  Falls. — This  stream,  already  described  as 
passing  through  the  heart  of  the  city,  afforded  for  many 
years  the  only  distributed  supply  of  drinking  water.  It  was 
originally  taken  from  the  stream  at  a  point  between  the 
present  crossings  of  Preston  street  and  Hoffman  street;  but 
has  since  been  derived  from  an  impounding  reservoir  on  the 
same  stream,  at  its  confluence  with  Roland  Run  some  three 
or  four  miles  beyond  the  present  city  limits.  It  is  thence 
brought  into  the  several  distributing  reservoirs.  The  daily 
consumption  from  this  source  now  amounts  to  nearly  twelve 
million  gallons.* 

Second.  Gunpowder  Falls. — During  the  year  1881,  works 
were  completed,  by  which  a  supply  from  this  stream  was 
impounded  at  Loch  Raven,  about  eleven  miles  from  the 


^Letter  from  Chief  Engineer  of  Water  Department,  July,  1897. 


14 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


centre  of  the  city,  thence  led  by  an  aqueduct  in  tunnel  to 
different  receiving  and  distributing  reservoirs.  From  this 
source  is  derived  a  present  daily  consumption  of  nearly 
40,000,000  gallons. 

The  daily  consumption  of  water  from  both  these  sources 
now  amounts  to  about  52,000,000  gallons,  or  about  ninety- 
five  gallons  per  head  of  present  population. 

For  the  disposal  of  this  liberal  supply  after  it  has  served 
its  purpose  of  refreshing  and  cleansing  over  a  half  million  of 
people  and  meeting  their  general  demands,  no  provision  has 
thus  far  been  made.  It  finds  its  own  way  to  the  harbor, 
sometimes  by  way  of  the  storm-water  drains,  but  more  gener¬ 
ally  by  way  of  the  street  gutters,  flooding  the  streets  in  the 
winter  season  when  the  gutters  are  obstructed  by  ice,  and 
causing  thereby  much  inconvenience  and  expense. 

CLIMATIC  CONDITIONS. 

As  sewage  disposal  in  some  of  its  methods,  particularly 
in  those  of  filtration  and  broad  irrigation,  is  affected  by  tem¬ 
perature  as  well  as  by  rainfall,  it  will  be  proper  here  to  note 

the  climatic  conditions  prevailing  at  Baltimore. 

/ 

RAINFALL. 

The  meteorological  statistics  for  the  City  of  Baltimore 
have  been  accurately  kept  for  but  a  few  years  past,  so  that 
the  records,  whilst  furnishing  information  as  to  total  precipi¬ 
tation,  and  enabling  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  average 
fall  to  be  expected  and  provided  for,  are  not  so  explicit  as  to 
the  amount  of  exceptionally  heavy  rainfall  in  short  intervals 
of  time.  These  data  become  important  for  properly  esti¬ 
mating  the  capacity  of  the  storm-water  drains. 

For  example,  a  rainfall  of  two  inches  in  twenty-four  hours 
may  be  considered  as  large,  and  is  not  of  very  frequent  occur¬ 
rence,  but  when  this  amount  or  more  falls  in  a  single  hour, 
as  occasionally  happens,  it  may  overtax  the  capacity  of 
drains  not  suitably  designed  for  meeting  such  a  downpour. 

On  .September  6th,  1895,  this  city  sustained  a  rainfall  of 
4f  inches  in  16J  hours.  Even  this  might  have  been  carried 
off  without  trouble  if  the  rate  of  fall  had  been  uniform,  but 
when,  during  this  storm  1J  inches  fell  in  2  hours,  it  proved  to 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


15 


be  more  than  some  of  the  drains  were  able  to  bear,  and  the 
result  was  the  bursting  of  several  of  them. 

For  further  example,  on  September  19th,  1896,  ninety-five 
hundredths  of  an  inch  fell  in  fifteen  minutes,  or  at  a  rate 
which,  if  continued  for  an  hour,  would  have  equalled  three 
and  eight-tenths  inches  in  that  time. 

Appended  to  the  special  report  on  Storm-Water  Drainage 
(Appendix  B)  will  be  found  a  tabular  statement  showing  the 
extraordinary  rainfalls  in  recent  years.* 

The  annual  rainfall  is  about  an  average  of  that  found  east 
of  the  Mississippi  valley,  being  43.85  inches,  with  extremes 
of  28.75  inches  in  1819  and  62.04  inches  in  1846. 

In  the  following  tables  the  mean  precipitation  and  the 
mean  temperature  for  each  month  are  given,  together  with 
those  of  some  other  cities,  with  whose  systems  of  sewage 
disposal  it  may  be  convenient  hereafter  to  compare  that  to 
be  recommended  for  Baltimore. 

MEANT  PRECIPITATION  AT  BALTIMORE  COMPARED 
WITH  THAT  AT  OTHER  CITIES.f 


INCHES. 


Baltimore. 

Worcester. 

Boston. 

Chicago. 

i 

Melbourne. 

Berlin. 

Dantzic. 

Paris. 

London 

(Greenwich). 

Jan. 

3.33 

3.92 

4.3 

2  2 
t-J  .  hJ 

1.73 

1.23 

0.99 

1.48 

2.43 

Feb. 

3.50 

3.23 

3.6 

2.8 

1.76 

1.47 

0.78 

0.87 

1.70 

Mar. 

4.10 

3.61 

4.3 

2.5 

2.03 

1.48 

1.07 

1.39 

1.39 

Apr. 

3.43 

3.91 

3.7 

8.1 

2.38 

1.60 

1.00 

1.47 

1.95 

May 

3.78 

4.14 

3.4 

3.6 

2.15 

2.01 

1.72 

2. 07 

1.84 

June 

4.02 

3.29 

3.4 

3.6 

2.03 

2.42 

2.04 

2.13 

2.14 

July 

4.70 

3.76 

3.5 

3.7 

1.90 

3.45 

2.54 

2.15 

2.49 

Aug. 

4.05 

4.92 

4.3 

3.5 

1.81 

2.37 

2.50 

1.76 

2.52 

Sept. 

3.88 

8.61 

3.0 

2.8 

2.33 

1.62 

1.59 

1.90 

2.49 

Oct. 

2.98 

4.36 

4.3 

3.2 

2.91 

1.32 

1. 88 

2.03 

2.76 

Nov. 

3.03 

4.04 

4.6 

2.7 

2.50 

1.77 

1.66 

1.44 

2.03 

Dec. 

3.05 

3*78 

3.5 

2.2 

2.35 

2.01 

1.29 

1.37 

2.39 

Annual 

43.85 

46.57 

46.1 

35.4 

25.88 

22.75 

18.56 

20.06 

26.13 

*See  also  Plate  XI. 


t Furnished  by  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau. 


16 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


MEAN  TEMPERATURES  AT  BALTIMORE  COMPARED 
WITH  THAT  AT  OTHER  CITIES.* 


DEGREES  FAHRENHEIT. 


Baltimore. 

Worcester. 

Boston. 

Chicago. 

Melbourne. 

Berlin. 

t 

Dantzic. 

Paris. 

' 

London 

(Greenwich). 

Jan. 

34.3 

23.7 

26.9 

24.0 

66.3 

32.8 

27.6 

37.2 

38.8 

Feb. 

37.0 

25.6 

28.3 

27.8 

65.8 

33.6 

28.7 

40.2 

40.4 

Mar. 

42.1 

33.1 

34.1 

34.4 

63.9 

39.0 

34.9 

44.6 

42.3 

Apr. 

53.2 

45.8 

44.4 

46.2 

58.7 

47.1 

42.3 

50.3 

48.2 

May 

63.9 

56.2 

56.8 

56.2 

53.3 

54.7 

50.3 

55.4 

54.0 

June 

72.3 

65.8 

66.4 

66.4 

49.7 

62.9 

60.0 

61.8 

60.4 

July 

78.6 

70.9 

71.9 

72.0 

47.6 

66.7 

63.8 

66.0 

63.6 

Aug. 

74.5 

.67.7 

69.9 

70.8 

50.4 

64.9 

62.2 

65.0 

63.3 

Sept. 

68.2 

60.9 

63.1 

64.2 

53.1 

58.7 

56.2 

59.0 

58.5 

Oct. 

58.0 

47.9 

52.1 

52.6 

57.0 

48.9 

45.6 

50.4 

50.9 

Nov. 

47.1 

39.3 

41.1 

39.0 

60.2 

39.9 

36.8 

43.2 

43.0 

Dec. 

38.5 

27.7 

31.5 

30.4 

65.0 

32.8 

29.6 

37.0 

89.9 

Annual 

55.6 

48.9 

48.7 

57.6 

48.5 

44.9 

50.8 

50.3 

GENERAL  DRAINAGE. 

The  City  of  Baltimore  has  never  had  in  the  past  any 
systematized  drainage. 

The  extensive  water  front  along  which  the  town  was  first 
built,  afforded,  with  the  intersecting  streams  already  men¬ 
tioned,  every  facility  for  getting  rid  of  surface  water,  and  all 
waste  water  polluted  by  domestic  use  was  allowed  to  take 
the  same  course  through  the  open  street  gutters.  Whether 
it  was  greasy  refuse  from  the  kitchen,  dirty  suds  from  the 
laundry,  or  foul  water  from  the  bath;  all  followed  that  course 


*  Furnished  by  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


17 


toward  the  harbor  which  the  graded  surface  defined,  drop¬ 
ping  the  heavier  filth  in  the  gutters  as  the  flow  progressed. 

Cesspools,  or  pits  in  the  rear  of  every  lot,  are,  and  have 
been  from  the  beginning,  the  receptacles  for  human  excreta. 

These  pits  are  lined  with  a  brick  curbing  generally  laid 
dry,  so  that  ground  water  has  ready  ingress  and  egress,  until 
the  joints  of  the  brick  lining  become  more  or  less  silted  up 
and  obstructed  by  lapse  of  time  and  the  accumulation  of 
deposited  matter. 

That  these  primitive  methods  could  have  been  tolerated 
here  for  so  long  a  time  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that,  until 
the  introduction  of  the  Gunpowder  water  in  1881,  the  liberal 
use  of  water  for  such  purposes  as  water-closets  and  baths 
was  checked  by  a  limited  water  supply.  That  they  should 
not  have  produced  greater  injury  to  the  public  health  may 
be  attributed  to  the  specially  salubrious  location  of  the  city, 
and  to  the  fact  that  its  topographical  features  are  particu¬ 
larly  favorable  to  a  thorough  cleansing  of  the  streets  and 
gutters  by  every  heavy  rain. 

With  the  growth  of  the  city,  the  extension  of  its  paved 
streets,  and  the  covering  of  its  vacant  lots  with  continuous 
rows  of  houses,  the  rainfall,  no  longer  held  back  or  absorbed 
by  the  exposed  surface  of  the  ground,  is  hurried  through  the 
gutters  to  the  lower  grounds,  whence  the  old  channels  can  no 
longer  discharge  the  increased  quantity  with  sufficient 
rapidity,  causing  the  overflow  of  gutters  into  cellars,  and 
involving  damage  to  property. 

This  has  led  within  a  few  years  past  to  the  construction 
of  numerous  sewers,  so-called,  to  carry  off  the  storm  water, 
which  have  been  built  on  the  old  and  natural  lines  of  drain¬ 
age  and,  it  is  believed,  without  any  reference  to  the  ultimate 
disposal  of  the  street  washings  and  solid  matter  carried  down 
'with  and  by  the  water. 

STORM- WATER  DRAINAGE. 

The  assumption  that  the  separate  system  will  be  adopted 
by  the  city,  and  that  the  present  storm-water  drains  will  be 
freed  from  sewage,  and  devoted  only  to  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  constructed,  has  made  it  incumbent  upon  the 
Commission  to  consider  their  adequacy  for  this  purpose.  It 


18 


REPORT  ON  SBWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


has,  therefore,  caused  such  examination  to  be  made,  and  a 
detailed  report  of  the  result  will  be  found  as  Appendix  B 
to  this  Report. 

CESSPOOLS  AND  WATER-CLOSETS. 

Whilst  the  demand  for  better  storm-water  drainage  has 
been  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  city  authorities,  the 
growth  of  the  city  in  population  and  wealth,  and  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  its  water  supply  system,  which  now  affords  a  daily 
volume  to  each  head  of  its  population  much  in  excess  of 
actual  needs,  have  stimulated  domestic  consumption,  and  the 
use  of  water-closets,  baths  and  other  house  fixtures,  has  be¬ 
come  general. 

Increased  employment  of  water-closets  has  been  neces¬ 
sarily  followed  by  much  more  rapid  filling  up  of  cesspools, 
and  property  holders  have  been  glad  to  avail  themselves  of 
access  to  the  storm-drains,  whenever  permission  to  do  so 
could  be  secured,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  the  over¬ 
flow  of  cesspools. 

This  privilege  was  at  first  refused  absolutely,  then  granted 
conditionally,  and  later  accorded  freely,  then  again  resolutely 
refused,  and  at  present  once  more  permitted  under  circum¬ 
stances  and  conditions  appealing  to  the  favorable  judgment 
of  the  authorities. 

Where  storm-water  drains  have  not  been  available,  permis¬ 
sion  has  been  readily  granted  to  individuals  and  corporations 
to  construct  private  drains  from  their  premises  to  the  nearest 
watercourse,  and  there  are  now  very  many  of  these  obstruct¬ 
ing  the  beds  of  the  streets  with  numerous,  and  frequently 
parallel  lines  discharging  their  filth  into  the  stream,  prin¬ 
cipally  into  Jones’  Falls,  or  directly  into  the  harbor,  befouling 
it  and  creating  a  nuisance  only  to  be  removed  by  the  expen¬ 
sive  process  of  dredging. 

The  cost  of  these  special  drains  is  usually  so  great  that 
only  corporations  or  persons  of  wealth  can  undertake  them, 
leaving  the  less  fortunate  owners  of  adjoining  tenements  full 
evidence  of  the  advantages  of  drainage,  but  without  the 
ability  to  profit  by  the  example  placed  before  them. 

The  city  has  not  been  without  the  experience  of  having 
the  overflow  from  the  cesspools  of  a  whole  row  of  large 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


19 


houses  conducted  by  a  private  drain-pipe,  and  discharged  into 
the  street  gutter  at  some  little  distance  from  the  houses,  for 
the  benefit  of  which  the  arrangement  was  made;  the  builder 
of  the  houses  having  availed  himself  of  this  method,  to  save 
himself  the  expense  of  deeper  pits  or  a  costly  private  drain 
to  the  Falls. 

Whilst  this,  and  doubtless  other  similar  cases  have  been 
discovered  and  corrected,  yet  it  is  safe  to  say  that  our  street 
gutters  to-day  are  not  everywhere  free  from  similar  con¬ 
tamination. 

The  emptying  of  cesspools,  and  the  disposal  of  their  con¬ 
tents  is  always  a  troublesome  and  expensive  matter  under 
existing  conditions.  The  pit  when  first  dug  of  reasonable 
size  and  depth  will,  under  favorable  circumstances,  serve  its 
purpose  for  a  long  time  without  causing  trouble  or  expense. 
The  fluids  will  disappear  in  the  surrounding  soil,  whilst  the 
accumulation  of  solid  matter  is  so  slow  as  to  be  unnoticeable. 
So  long  as  the  fluid  passes  off,  or  does  not  rise  so  high  in  the 
pit  as  to  suggest  overflow,  all  is  satisfactory  and  no  com¬ 
plaint  is  heard. 

It  may  create  a  nuisance  in  a  neighbors  cellar,  but  the 
source  of  the  nuisance  in  such  case,  is  not  readily  traceable, 
unless  it  be  immediately  adjoining,  and  the  neighbor,  after  a 
vain  search  for  the  cause,  is  made  to  believe  that  the  trouble 
is  local  and  peculiar  to  his  own  premises;  that  he  has  a 
damp  cellar  which  he  is  advised  to  pave.  This  perhaps  he 
does,  but  probably  realizing  that  the  paving  has  only  served 
to  partly  conceal  from  view  what  is  still  evident  to  his  other 
senses,  he  finally,  and  perhaps  not  until  after  a  case  of  sick¬ 
ness  in  the  house,  determines  to  move  elsewhere. 

The  pit  itself,  after  a  time,  which  may  be  many  years,  be¬ 
comes  so  silted  up  that  the  foul  matter  reaches  to  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  ground,  and  becomes  a  recognized  nuisance,  both 
to  the  owner  and  his  neighbors. 

Resort  is  then  had  to  the  night-soil  scavenger,  who  cleans 
the  pit  more  or  less  thoroughly,  carting  the  contents  to  the 
points  which  the  city  authorities  have  established  as  dump¬ 
ing  places,  where  the  filth  is  dumped  into  scows  provided  by 
a  party  who  contracts  with  the  city  to  receive  and  dispose 
of  it.  The  pit  when  emptied  serves  again  its  original  pur¬ 
pose,  but  by  reason  of  the  silting  up  already  described,  does 


20 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


not  pass  the  fluid  into  the  soil  as  readily  as  at  first,  and  it 
soon  becomes  again  necessary  to  empty  it.  The  process,  as 
said  before,  is  expensive,  and  the  owner,  after  noting  its 
recurrence  with  increasing  frequency,  avails  of  proffered  ad¬ 
vice  to  sink  the  pit  deeper  or  to  dig  a  new  one.  The  expe¬ 
dient  is  found  only  temporarily  effective,  however,  for  the 
more  or  less  saturated  soil  does  not  drain  off  the  fluids  as 
well  as  at  first. 

In  many  places,  particularly  where  lots  are  shallow  or  the 
ground  fully  occupied  for  business  purposes,  newer  pits  have 
been  dug  in  the  cellars  under  the  house  proper. 

Such  is  the  ignorance  or  indifference  as  to  the  danger  to 
health  arising  from  this  last  cause  that  instances  could  be 
cited  where  such  pits  exist  in  the  cellars  of  large  and  costly 
dwellings  in  the  central  and  most  fashionable  part  of  the 
city,  and  this,  too,  where  large  and  ample  lots  make  no  such 
course  compulsory. 

Instances  are  not  unknown  where,  the  lots  being  fully  occu¬ 
pied,  the  owner  has  preferred  to  place  his  new  pit  in  the 
public  street,  rather  than  in  his  own  cellar,  and  has  so  con¬ 
structed  it  after  obtaining  permission  from  the  authorities. 

This  is  not  an  exaggerated  picture  of  the  conditions  which 
prevail  in  Baltimore  to-day,  being  of  course  greatly  worse  in 
the  older  portions  of  the  city  than  in  those  more  recently 
built  upon. 

In  his  annual  reports  from  year  to  year,  the  Commissioner 
of  Health  lias  called  attention  to  the  existing  conditions  in 
this  regard.  In  his  report  for  the  year  ending  December  31, 
1895,  he  says: 

"It  is  not  asserting  too  much  to  declare  that  our  privies 
are  the  most  dangerous  enemies  of  our  lives  and  happiness. 
The  contents  of  these  abominable  receptacles  have  free  ac¬ 
cess  to  the  soil,  and  saturate  the  ground  with  liquid  filth  to 
such  a  degree,  that  specimens  of  sub-soil  water  taken  from 
different  depths,  and  in  different  sections,  yield  a  large  per¬ 
centage  of  organic  matters,  the  products  of  animal  excretion. 

“  Many  of  them  overflow,  and  the  liquid  contents  flow  into 
yards  and  gutters,  emitting  most  offensive  odors,  which  are  a 
fruitful  source  of  disease,  operating  indirectly  in  its  produc¬ 
tion,  and  directly  in  lowering  the  vital  stamina  of  the  unfor¬ 
tunates  compelled  to  breathe  a  polluted  atmosphere.” 


FOR  TITE'  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


21 


How  much  of  the  water-closet  and  privy  or  cesspool  drain¬ 
age  now  reaches  the  harbor  through  the  public  storm-water 
drains,  or  by  those  privately  owned,  your  Commission  has  no 
means  of  ascertaining,  nor  can  it  estimate  the  amount  which 
filters  through  the  soil.  That  it  is  already  large  is,  however, 
manifest,  for  of  the  52  million  gallons  of  pure  water  now  daily 
distributed  throughout  the  city,  and  which  must  find  its  way 
to  tide  level,  we  have  only  account  of  about  50,000  gallons 
of  foul  liquid  daily  removed  from  the  cesspools;  or  about 
one-tenth  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  whole. 

These  existing  conditions  have  long  been  the  subject  of  anx¬ 
ious  consideration  to  such  of  our  citizens  as  recognize  the  fact 
that,  though  our  city  has  for  a  century  escaped  any  serious 
epidemic,  it  is  nevertheless  constantly  exposed  to  attack, 
which  may  be  less  readily  repelled  when  surrounded  as  we 
are  by  these  filthy  accumulations.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that 
if  once  seriously  attacked  by  an  epidemic,  exhalations  from 
cesspools,  loaded  with  the  foul  and  dangerous  dejecta  of 
disease,  are  not  unlikely  to  increase  the  liability  to  a  subse¬ 
quent  recurrence. 

FINAL  DISPOSAL  OF  NIGHT  SOIL  UNDER  EXIST¬ 
ING  METHODS. 

The  contents  of  cesspools,  collected  by  licensed  scavengers, 
is  permitted  to  be  delivered  only  at  the  localities  authorized 
by  the  Board  of  Health.  Of  these  there  are  now  two,  one 
at  what  is  known  as  Winans’  Wharf,  near  the  extreme 
southern  point  of  the  city,  and  the  other  at  Foley’s  Wharf, 
at  the  extreme  southeastern  city  line. 

At  these  dumping  places  the  matter,  conveyed  thither  in 
sealed  barrels  or  tanks,  is  emptied  into  scows  or  barges  sup¬ 
plied  by  the  contractor  who  has  engaged  with  the  city  to 
remove  the  same  to  localities  beyond  the  city  limits,  where 
its  deposit  shall  not  create  nuisance. 

The  barges  when  filled  are  towed  to  one  of  some  thirty-five 
different  localities,  on  Bear  Creek,  on  Middle  River  or  on 
North  Point  Creek,  where  the  contents  are  transferred  by 
pumps  to  pits  or  tanks,  whence  it  is  purchased  and  removed 
in  tank  wagons  by  the  farmers  of  the  several  neighborhoods 
as  needed  by  them,  and  directly  applied  to  their  fields. 


22 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  heavier  portion  which  may  collect  in  the  bottom  of 
the  tanks,  if  not  removed  by  the  tank  wagons  of  the  farmers, 
has  been  applied  to  the  surface  of  fields  owned  by  the  con¬ 
tractor,  where  it  has  been  worked  up  into  a  compost,  and  sold 
in  that  way  as  a  fertilizer. 

It  does  not  appear  from  inspection  of  the  contractor’s  plant 
that  any  portion  of  this  matter  is  allowed  to  waste  into  the 
creek;  yet  on  one  of  several  visits  to  Bear  Creek  the  water 
seemed  to  be  a  good  deal  befouled,  which,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  statement  of  a  party  long  resident  in  this  locality, 
that  the  fish,  formerly  abundant,  no  longer  frequent  the  creek, 
leads  to  the  inference  that  more  of  the  foul  matter  finds  its 
way  to  the  creek  than  is  easily  apparent. 

VOLUME  OF  SEWAGE. 

The  quantity  of  sewage  to  be  collected  and  disposed  of 
may  be  fairly  estimated  from  the  population  and  the  average  * 
water  consumption,  with  a  proper  allowance  according  to 
actual  conditions  of  construction  for  the  accession  of  rain 
water  from  the  surface  or  of  ground  water  from  below. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that,  in  providing  a  system  of 
sewerage  which  shall  be  fully  adequate  for  the  next  thirty 
years  at  least,  the  growth  of  population  in  that  time  must 
be  provided  for,  and  we  have  estimated  that  in  1925  the 
population  will  probably  be  so  near  a  million  of  people,  that 
we  may  without  much  probable  error  assume  that  as  the 
number. 

It  has  been  shown  also  that  the  present  water  consumption 
approaches  the  amount  of  one  hundred  gallons  per  head  of 
present  population.  This  is  believed  to  be  adequate  for 
future  requirements.  Whilst  the  tendency  in  the  past  has 
been  to  increasing  consumption  per  head,  it  is  not  thought 
that  this  will  continue. 

It  will  be  met  by  a  realization  on  the  part  of  the  city 
authorities,  of  the  enormous  waste  beyond  absolute  require¬ 
ments  involved  in  even  the  present  rate  of  consumption,  and 
of  the  greater  cost  of  the  water  to  supply  future  demands  by 
the  necessity  of  pumping  to  higher  elevations  in  what  are 
now  the  suburbs  of  the  city. 

This,  with  the  further  realization  that  most  of  the  water 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


23 


thus  distributed  must  be  carried  away  by  the  new  sewers, 
much  of  it  at  a  further  cost  of  pumping  from  the  lower 
levels,  will  lead  to  the  adoption  of  methods  for  checking 
waste,  such  as  have  already  been  brought  into  use  in  other 
places. 

It  may  here  be  noted  that  our  neighbor,  Philadelphia, 
which  in  1885,  consumed  seventy-two  gallons  per  head  per 
day,  and  which  had  reached  a  consumption  in  1890  of  one 
hundred  and  thirty -two  gallons  per  head  per  day,  is  now 
reported  by  its  Water  Engineer  as  having  attained  in  1895 
one  hundred  and  sixty-two  gallons  per  head  per  day.*  The 
city  is  now  agitating  the  question  of  checking  the  wasteful 
consumption  which  an  intelligent  authority,  who  has  been 
considering  the  question  of  an  improved  supply  of  water, 
states  may  in  all  likelihood  be  reduced  to  one  hundred  gallons 
per  head  by  the  year  1900.f 

Of  the  ninety-five  gallons  per  head,  now  used  by  the  present 
population  of  Baltimore,  quite  a  large  but  uncertain  pro¬ 
portion  serves  for  fountains,  street  sprinkling,  garden  hose, 
etc.,  and  will  find  its  way  in  the  future,  as  it  does  at  present, 
to  the  storm-water  drains,  and  not  to  the  new  sewers. 

Nevertheless,  in  estimating  the  volume  to  be  disposed  of 
by  the  new  system,  it  has  been  deemed  prudent  to  add  thirty 
per  cent,  to  the  present  consumption  per  head,  to  provide  for 
contingencies  of  all  kinds,  including  such  admission  of  rain 
water  and  infiltration  of  ground  water  as  it  may  be  difficult 
to  exclude. 

We  thus  have  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  gallons  per 
head  of  population  to  provide  for,  and  with  the  prospective 
ultimate  population  of  one  million,  a  total  of  certainly  125,- 
000,000  gallons  which  the  new  works  must  be  capable  of 
receiving  and  removing  each  day. 

It  has  nevertheless  been  deemed  prudent  by  the  Consult¬ 
ing  Engineers  from  the  information  supplied  to  them  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  150  gallons  per  head  of  population,  and  their  esti¬ 
mates  have  been  made  on  that  basis. 

*  Annual  Report  of  the  Philadelphia  Bureau  of  Water,  for  1895. 

t Report  on  the  City’s  Water  Supply  to  the  Woman’s  Health  Protective  Associ¬ 
ation  of  Philadelphia,  by  Allen  Hazen. 


24 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 

It  is  very  generally  agreed  by  all  who  have  knowledge  of 
the  subject  that  the  removal  of  human  excreta  from  the  im¬ 
mediate  neighborhood  of  human  habitations  should  be 
effected  as  rapidly  as  possible.  A  distinguished  English 
engineer  has  said  of  it: 

"It  is  an  offense  to  the  senses  and  a  menace  to  health  as 
long  as  it  remains.” 

The  recognized  modern  methods  of  sewage  disposal  may 
be  enumerated  as  follows: 

First.  Dilution  by  discharge  into  the  sea,  or  into  large 
bodies  of  fresh  water,  lakes  or  rivers. 

Second.  Chemical  Precipitation. 

Third.  Intermittent  Filtration  and  Irrigation  of  Crops. 

These  several  methods  of  disposal  are  more  or  less  avail¬ 
able,  according  to  the  conditions  affecting  each  particular 
case. 

1st.  DILUTION. 

Where  a  large  body  of  water,  not  used  for  drinking  pur¬ 
poses,  is  near  at  hand,  with  currents  such  that  dilution  may 
be  quickly  effected  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  leave  no  appre¬ 
hension  of  offense  to  riparian  or  other  interests,  a  discharge 
of  the  sewage  into  it  may  be  the  most  economical  as  well  as 
the  most  convenient  method  of  disposal.  If  it  be  the  ocean 
into  which  such  discharge  is  made,  the  disposal  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  final. 

When,  however,  as  most  frequently  occurs,  the  outfall  is 
into  a  river  or  bay,  greater  precaution  is  necessary  in  order 
to  guard  against  objectionable  deposits  due  to  the  peculiar 
regimen  of  the  river  or  the  currents  of  the  bay,  and  due  con¬ 
sideration  must  be  given  to  possibly  changing  conditions  in 
the  future. 

The  great  facility  with  which  water-borne  sewage  may  be 
put  out  of  sight  by  discharge  into  adjacent  rivers,  lakes  and 
bays  has  led  to  much  abuse  of  this  method  of  disposal.  A 
practice  that  might  be  tolerated  with  the  population  of  a 
village  or  that  of  a  small  town  often  finds  its  limit  before 
the  young  but  rapidly  growing  city,  into  which  the  village 
or  town  has  developed,  finds  itself  ready  to  cope  with  the 
nuisance  which  has  grown  up  about  it. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


25 


Amongst  many  instances  of  this  sort  which  might  be  cited 
and  which  have  been  met  by  a  thorough  and  complete  system 
of  disposal  by  dilution  it  will  suffice  to  mention  as  examples 
the  cities  of  Boston,  Chicago  and  Memphis. 

BOSTON.* 

A  high  and  increasing  death  rate  in  the  City  of  Boston, 
which  had  reached  30.5  per  1,000  in  1872  and  was  28.1  in 
1873,  led  to  the  appointment,  in  1875,  by  the  authority  of  the 
Mayor  and  Board  of  Aldermen,  of  a  Commission,  consisting 
of  two  civil  engineers  and  a  person  skilled  in  the  subject  of 
sanitary  science,  to  report  upon  the  existing  sewerage  of  the 
city,  its  future  wants  and  an  approximate  estimate  of  the 
expense  of  any  plan  or  plans  for  a  system  of  sewerage  sub¬ 
mitted  by  them. 

These  gentlemen  presented  their  report  in  the  following 
year.f  It  is  not  without  interest  for  us  to  note  that,  giving 
the  experience  and  practice  of  other  cities,  they  speak  of  the 
conditions  existing  in  Baltimore  as  follows: 

"Most  of  the  first-class  dwellings  and  the  hotels  have 
water-closets  discharging  into  cesspools  made  in  the  porous 
soil  of  the  city.  In  some  cases  their  liquid  contents  are 
emptied  into  the  sewers.  Street  washings  and  the  slop-water 
discharged  by  the  sewers,  however,  have  made  the  basin 
very  filthy  and  foul-smelling.  Near  the  city  the  tide  rises 
and  falls  only  one  foot  and  a  half,  an  incurable  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  within  the  city  limits. 
Already  a  main-drainage  scheme  is  talked  of,  to  take  all  the 
sewage  to  a  point  several  miles  below  the  city,  and  to  abolish 
cesspools,  but  it  has  not  yet  assumed  a  definite  shape.” 

There  were  already  existing  in  Boston  upwards  of  125 
miles  of  sewers,  which  received  storm  water  and  such  house 
drainage  as  reached  them  and  discharged  into  the  nearest  or 
most  available  part  of  the  harbor,  but  which  were  inter¬ 
rupted  in  their  flow  by  the  state  of  the  tide,  so  that  not  only 
might  the  sewers  be  full  at  high  tide,  but  the  sewage  was 
liable  to  be  forced  back  into  the  houses  by  the  action  of  the 
tide. 

*See  Report  on  Boston  Main  Drainage,  by  Eliot  C.  Clarke,  C.  E.,  and  the  vari¬ 
ous  Reports  of  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commission, 
t  Report  of  Commission  on  The  Sewerage  of  Boston,  1870. 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


20 


Tlie  Commission  states,  “  There  are  in  use  now  in  various 
parts  of  the  world  three  methods  of  disposing  of  the  sewage 
of  large  cities,  where  the  water-carriage  system  is  in  use.” 

“  First.  Precipitation  of  the  solid  parts,  with  a  view  to 
utilizing  them  as  manure  and  to  purifying  the  streams.” 

“  Second.  Irrigation.”  • 

“The  third  way  is  that  adopted  the  world  over  by  large 
cities  near  deep  water,  and  consists  in  carrying  the  sewage 
out  so  far  that  its  point  of  discharge  will  be  remote  from 
dwellings,  and  beyond  the  possibility  of  doing  harm.  It  is 
the  plan  which  your  Commission  recommends  for  Boston.” 

For  effecting  this  the  Commission  recommended  the  con¬ 
struction  of  a  system  of  intercepting  sewers,  which  should 
receive  the  discharge  from  the  existing  sewers  and  convey 
the  whole  to  a  point  in  the  outer  bay,  whence  the  sewage 
would  be  swept  to  sea  by  the  outgoing  tides  which  have  a 
mean  rise  and  fall  of  about  ten  feet. 

The  estimated  cost  of  the  works  was  placed  at  $6, 551, 000. 

At  the  ensuing  session  of  the  Legislature  an  enabling  act 
was  obtained,  authorizing  the  construction  of  the  works, 
which  was  immediately  followed  by  action  of  the  Mayor  and 
City  Council  adopting  the  general  recommendations  of  the 
Commission  and  appropriating  $40,000  for  making  further 
necessary  surveys  and  estimates  by  the  City  Engineer. 

In  July,  1877,  that  officer  reported  a  definite  scheme  cor¬ 
responding  in  all  essentials  to  that  recommended  by  the  Com¬ 
mission.  He  fixed  the  point  of  discharge  at  Moon  Island, 
whence  the  sewage  would  be  swept  out  at  ebb  tide  by  cur¬ 
rents  not  capable  of  affecting  unfavorably  the  inner  harbor. 

The  revised  estimate  placed  the  cost  of  the  work  at 
$3,712,700. 

On  January  1,  1884,  the  connections  between  the  common 
and  intercepting  sewers  were  first  opened  at  a  total  cost 
reported  to  December  31,  1885,  of  $5,278,786.44. 

It  must  be  observed  here  that  this  sum  is  the  cost  only  of 
the  intercepting  and  disposal  system,  into  which  is  received 
the  sewage  from  the  network  of  district  and  lateral  sewers, 
of  which  some  200  miles  or  more  were  already  in  existence 
when  the  disposal  works  were  opened  to  a  connection  with 
them. 

Through  the  courtesy  of  the  present  City  Engineer  of 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


27 


Boston,  Mr.  William  Jackson,  special  facilities  were  afforded 
a  member  of  your  Commission  for  an  examination  of  this  im¬ 
portant  work,  which  in  its  successful  operation,  fidfilling 
every  anticipation  of  its  projectors,  illustrates  again  the  im¬ 
portance  of  thorough  investigation  before  undertaking  works 
of  such  magnitude. 

The  highly  satisfactory  working  of  this  system  has  since 
led  to  its  extension  to  the  suburban  districts  along  the  Mystic, 
Charles  and  Neponset  valleys.  Under  the  direction  and  con¬ 
trol  of  a  Board  of  Metropolitan  Sewerage  Commissioners  a 
scheme  was  formulated  for  disposing  of  the  sewage  derived 
from  and  collected  by  the  various  towns  and  villages  included 
in  an  area  of  159  square  miles,  surrounding  Boston  in  all 
directions  and  known  as  the  Metropolitan  Sewerage  District. 

The  sewage  is  collected  by  a  large  number  of  intercepting 
sewers  which,  with  the  aid  of  several  pumping  stations,  serve 
to  convey  it  to  points  of  delivery  in  the  outer  harbor. 

A  portion  reaches  Moon  Island  through  the  outfall  sewer 
which  serves  the  City  of  Boston.  Another  and  the  larger  por¬ 
tion  is  conveyed  through  a  distinct  outfall  sewer  to  Deer 
Island  on  the  north  side  of  the  outer  harbor,  distant  some 
three  miles  from  Moon  Island,  where  it  is  discharged  and 
swept  out  by  the  tides. 

Up  to  October  1,  1896,  about  53  miles  of  these  sewers  had 
been  constructed  with  an  expenditure  of  $4,956,555.  Further 
extension  at  a  cost  of  about  1J  millions  has  already  been 
authorized. 


CHICAGO. 

The  City  of  Chicago,  originally  located  on  a  perfectly  flat 
prairie  only  a  few  feet  above  the  level  of  Lake  Michigan, 
which  then  dashed  its  storm  waves  into  the  streets  of  the 
city,  is  intersected  in  several  directions  by  the  Chicago  Biver 
and  its  branches,  emptying  with  very  sluggish  current  into 
the  lake. 

Some  35  years  ago  in  order  to  effect  an  adequate  fall  for 
the  sewage  of  the  city  to  the  river  and  lake,  a  scheme  was 
undertaken  at  enormous  cost  to  raise  the  level  of  the  city 
some  5  to  12  feet.  This  project  was  carried  out  and  property 
owners  raised  their  houses,  sometimes  a  whole  block  at  a 
time,  to  the  new  level.  The  water  supply  of  the  city  was  at 


28 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


the  same  time  derived  from  the  lake  by  an  intake  located  a 
mile  or  two  from  the  shore. 

The  growth  of  the  city  since  that  time  has  demonstrated 
the  necessity  for  a  further  radical  change.  So  befouled  has 
become,  not  only  the  river,  but  the  whole  lake  front,  that 
after  extending  the  fresh  water  intake  to  a  distance  of  4  miles 
from  the  shore,  without  thereby  obtaining  the  relief  from 
apprehension  of  pollution  which  should  be  guaranteed  to  the 
inhabitants  of  a  large  city  *  in  regard  to  their  water  supply, 
it  has  been  determined  to  correct  the  evil  radically,  and, 
instead  of  discharging  the  sewage  into  the  lake,  to  reverse 
the  direction  of  the  river’s  flow,  and  with  the  aid  of  the 
water  of  the  lake,  to  wash  out  the  river,  sewage  and  all,  and, 
through  a  canal  being  constructed  for  the  purpose,  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  whole  into  the  Des  Plaines  River  and  thence  to 
the  Illinois  River,  a  tributary  of  the  Mississippi. 

It  has  been  concluded,  after  much  investigation  and  with 
the  aid  of  several  of  the  most  experienced  engineers  in  the 
country,  that  the  dimensions  of  the  canal  shall  be  ultimately 
such  as  to  admit  of  a  dilution  bv  flushing  from  the  lake  at 
the  rate  of  four  cubic  feet  per  second  for  every  1,000  of  popu¬ 
lation  of  the  city. 

This  it  is  claimed  will  secure  a  degree  of  dilution  for  the 
sewage  sufficient  to  prevent  its  becoming  offensive  at  any 
point  of  its  course,  or  even  objectionable  in  any  way  when 
it  reaches  the  Mississippi. 

This  great  work  is  now  in  fall  progress  at  an  estimated 
cost  of  upwards  of  |32,000,000.f  When  completed  it  is  ex¬ 
pected  to  afford  a  ship  canal  between  the  lakes  and  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  with  a  least  width  of  160  feet  and  a  depth  of  18  feet. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Boston  works,  the  cost  given  is  that  of  the  intercepting  or  dis¬ 
posal  system.  Chicago  already  had  in  1895  some  1,248  miles 
of  sewers,  the  cost  of  which  aggregated  nearly  $17,000,0004 

2d.  CHEMICAL  PRECIPITATION. 

Where  no  large  body  of  water  is  available  for  dilution,  or 
where  in  river  or  bay  the  presence  of  crude  sewage  is  objec- 

*See  Water  Supply,  by  Prof.  W.  P.  Mason. 

tSee  Proceedings  of  the  Chicago  City  Council  for  March  1,  1897. 

t.  See  Report  of  the  Chicago  Department  of  Public  Works  for  1895. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


29 


tionable,  tlie  difficulty  may  be  met  by  a  partial  purification  of 
the  effluent,  which  may  be  effected  by  what  is  termed  chemi¬ 
cal  precipitation. 

This  process  consists  in  conducting  the  sewage,  at  the  place 
of  outfall,  first  through  strainers  to  remove  the  coarser 
matter,  and  then  into  tanks,  where  it  is  treated  to  an  ad¬ 
mixture  of  some  coagulant,  such  as  sulphate  of  alumina  or 
sulphate  of  iron. 

It  is  then  passed  very  slowly  through  a  series  of  settling 
basins,  where  time  is  allowed  for  the  deposit  of  the  suspended 
matter,  to  accelerate  and  facilitate  which  action  is  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  chemical  admixture. 

If  these  basins  be  of  sufficient  extent,  and  time  enough  be 
allowed  in  the  process,  it  is  claimed  that  the  effluent  may 
pass  off  in  a  condition  so  much  improved  as  not  to  be  seriously 
offensive  to  either  sight  or  smell,  but  the  precipitation  thus 
effected  is  at  best  but  partial,  and  the  effluent  still  retains 
in  solution  about  one-half  of  the  organic  matter  originally 
held  therein. 

The  deposited  matter,  technically  known  as  sludge ,  remains, 
however,  in  the  bottom  of  the  basins,  and  must  be  removed 
and  disposed  of  in  some  special  way. 

In  order  to  diminish  its  bulk,  this  sludge  is  sometimes  sub¬ 
mitted  to  high  pressure  to  get  rid  of  the  large  amount  of 
water  which  it  retains,  amounting  to  some  ninety  per  cent, 
of  its  whole  volume. 

The  solid  cakes  resulting  from  this  pressure  are  then 
burned,  or  disposed  of  as  fertilizer,  although  it  does  not  ap¬ 
pear  that  the  farmer  attaches  much  value  to  them  for  this 
purpose. 

The  City  of  London  now  treats  by  precipitation  its  enor¬ 
mous  volume  of  sewage,  amounting,  in  1895,  to  about  two 
hundred  and  five  millions  of  gallons  per  day,*  and  has  estab¬ 
lished  a  line  of  steamships,  specially  designed  and  con¬ 
structed  for  the  purpose,  to  convey  the  residuant  and  im¬ 
pressed  sludge  to  the  North  Sea,  where  it  is  dumped,  the 
ship  returning  for  another  load. 

In  1893  there  were  in  use  five  sludge  steamers  of  1,000 


*See  Reports  of  tlie  Chief  Engineer  of  the  London  County  Council,  and  Report 
on  Sewage  Purification  to  the  County  Borough  of  Leeds,  by  Thos.  Hewson,  City 
Engineer,  1894. 


30 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


tons  capacity  each,  and  two  were  to  be  added  soon.  These 
transported  40,000  tons  per  week. 

There  are  numerous  other  examples  abroad  of  the  use  of 
this  method  of  disposal,  usually  made  necessary  to  correct  the 
defilement  of  rivers  and  harbors  polluted  by  the  discharge  of 
crude  sewage  into  them.  Leeds,  Manchester,  Birmingham, 
Bradford,  Coventry,  Salford,  Sheffield  and  Southampton  in 
England,  Glasgow  in  Scotland,  Amsterdam  in  Holland, 
Frankfort  in  Germany  and  Boulogne  in  France  all  employ  it. 
Of  these  we  shall  only  cite  Glasgow. 

GLASGOW.* 

Until  1894,  the  sewage  of  Glasgow  was  discharged  into  the 
Clyde,  making  that  important  stream  perhaps  the  most  foully 
polluted  of  navigable  rivers. 

Its  population  of  about  700,000  is  dense,  occupying  but  18J 
square  miles  of  area.  The  precipitation  plant  recently  put 
in  operation,  takes,  however,  the  sewage  of  but  300,000  per¬ 
sons  from  an  area  of  only  4  square  miles,  the  excreta  from 
the  bulk  of  the  population  being  still  collected  in  pails  by 
contractors  who  dispose  of  it  at  a  profit  of  from  25  cents  to 
50  cents  per  ton. 

The  works  have  a  present  capacity  of  12  million  U.  S. 
gallons  of  sewage  per  day,  but  are  designed  to  treat  about 
twice  this  amount  eventually. 

They  cover  28  acres  of  ground  and  have  cost  about  ?335,000 
exclusive  of  the  cost  of  the  ground. 

The  sewage  is  received  from  a  7J  foot  main  through  a 
coarse  grid  intended  to  catch  heavy  floating  matter,  and  is 
thence  intercepted  by  rotary  screens  of  f  inch  opening,  which 
collect  all  other  floating  matter  and  deposit  it  in  a  receptacle, 
whence  by  suitable  mechanical  arrangement  it  is  removed  at 
proper  intervals  to  a  destructor  furnace  and  is  there  con¬ 
sumed. 

The  sewage,  freed  of  the  heavy  matter,  is  led  to  a  pump- 
well,  whence  it  is  lifted  by  centrifugal  pumps  to  the  mixing 
pit,  where  the  chemicals  are  introduced.  Sulphate  of  alu- 

*See  Engineering  Record,  Vol.  XXXII,  page  401  ;  Municipal  Government  in 
Great  Britain,  by  Albert  Shaw,  and  a  Description  of  the  Sewage  Purification 
Works  by  the  Manager,  Thos.  Melvin. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


31 

inina  and  lime  are  tlie  precipitants  now  used  in  varying  pro¬ 
portions  according  to  the  nature  of  the  sewage,  the  character 
of  which  varies  greatly  during  the  day,  owing  to  the  large 
amount  of  waste  from  manufacturing  establishments  which 
reaches  the  sewers  during  working  hours. 

The  sewage  after  receiving  the  chemical  admixtures  is  led 
to  the  precipitation  tanks  or  basins,  24  in  number,  50  feet  by 
40  feet  in  area  and  6  feet  in  depth.  These  are  so  worked 
intermittently  as  to  allow  the  sewage  to  rest  in  the  tank 
receiving  it  for  45  minutes,  which  suffices  to  effect  the  re¬ 
quired  degree  of  precipitation.  The  effluent  valves,  arranged 
to  draw  off  the  water  from  the  upper  surface,  are  then  opened 
and  the  effluent  is  passed  across  a  series  of  24  aerating  beds 
or  channels  of  brick,  each  43  feet  by  40  feet  in  size.  From 
these  the  effluent  is  distributed  to  the  filters,  of  which  there 
are  20  of  coke,  each  40  feet  by  10  feet  in  area  and  3^  feet  in 
depth.  After  passing  the  coke  filters  72  per  cent,  of  the 
organic  matter  has  been  removed.  The  effluent  thus  con¬ 
siderably  purified  is  then  distributed  to  40  sand  filters,  each 
of  which  is  40  feet  by  38  feet  and  2J  feet  in  depth.  These 
remove  a  further  quantity  of  organic  matter,  so  that  after 
passing  them  81  per  cent,  of  that  originally  contained  has 
been  abstracted  and  the  effluent  in  this  condition  passes  into 
the  Clyde. 

The  sludge  from  the  field  precipitation  tanks  is  led  back  to 
the  works,  where  it  is  collected  in  small  settling  tanks  and 
allowed  to  further  precipitate.  It  here  loses  about  50  per 
cent,  of  the  water  which  it  contained  when  it  left  the  field 
tanks.  It  is  then  raised  by  compressed  air  to  a  mixing  tank 
where  hot  lime  is  added,  and  is  then  forced  by  the  same  means 
to  the  rams  and  presses.  There  are  seven  presses,  each  capa¬ 
ble  of  holding  1^  tons  of  pressed  sludge  cake.  When  thor¬ 
oughly  pressed  the  cake  is  dropped  by  chutes  into  railway 
wagons  and  so  removed  to  the  city  farm.  Sixty  tons  of  these 
cakes  are  said  to  be  the  daily  output. 

The  cost  of  operating  the  works  for  the  year  1894-95  is 
stated  to  have  been  $13.60  per  million  gallons. 

The  sewage  treated  at  Glasgow  is  probably  much  denser 
than  would  be  that  at  Baltimore,  and  therefore  the  cost  of 
operating  similar  works  here  might  cost  less  for  chemicals, 
perhaps  altogether  much  less.  At  the  same  rate  it  would 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


QO 

O  jLJ 

amount,  for  tlie  treatment  of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore,  to 
$204,765  per  annum  wlien  330,000  persons  are  connected  witli 
the  sewers,  and  to  upwards  of  $ 600,000  per  annum  eventually 
for  the  estimated  future  population  of  one  million;  and  this 
without  including  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  general  system 
of  sewers,  and  also  without  regard  to  interest  and  sinking 
fund  on  capital  outlay. 

These  figures  at  least  serve  to  illustrate  the  costly  expe¬ 
dients  to  which  are  driven  other  cities  less  fortunately  situ¬ 
ated  than  our  own. 

In  our  own  country  the  employment  of  chemical  precipita¬ 
tion  is  not  very  extended,  and  the  establishments  are  gen¬ 
erally  on  a  small  scale.  They  may  be  found  at  Long  Branch, 
N.  J.,  Round  Lake,  White  Plains,  New  Rochelle,  Chautauqua, 
Sheepshead  Bay,  and  Coney  Island,  N.  Y.,  Alliance  and  Can¬ 
ton,  Ohio,  and  Worcester,  Mass.  The  latter  is  the  largest 
and  by  far  the  most  important  work  of  the  kind  on  this  side 
of  the  ocean,  and  is  the  only  one  which  it  is  thought  necessary 
to  describe  here. 


WORCESTER.* 

The  city  of  Worcester  formerly  discharged  its  sewage  in 
a  crude  state  into  the  Blackstone  River,  a  small  stream  emp¬ 
tying  into  tidewater  near  the  head  of  Narragansett  Bay. 
The  continual  complaint  of  its  pollution,  emanating  from 
the  numerous  villages  and  mill-sites  with  which  its  banks 
are  studded,  led  finally  to  energetic  action  for  the  abatement 
of  a  nuisance  which  had,  in  1883,  become  unbearable. 

The  city  authorities  shortly  thereafter  authorized  the  city 
engineer  to  investigate  existing  systems  at  home  and  abroad 
with  the  view  of  ascertaining  the  best  method  of  meeting 
the  conditions  there  prevailing.  He  visited  the  most  import¬ 
ant  plants  in  Europe  and  presented,  in  1887,  his  report  and 
recommendations  for  a  chemical  precipitation  plant  as  that 
most  suitable  for  Worcester.  This  plan  was  adopted,  and 
in  December,  1890,  the  same  officer  reports  that  the  sewage 
disposal  works  have  been  practically  completed. 


*See  Report  of  tlie  City  Engineer  on  the  Disposal  of  Sewage,  1887,  and  the 
Annual  Reports  of  the  Superintendent  of  Sewers. 


FOR  THE'  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


33 


The  process  consists  of  the  admixture  of  chemicals  after  a 
preliminary  screening.  The  flow  of  the  sewage  after  mixing 
is  over  a  weir  to  a  series  of  26  settling  tanks;  of  which  16 
have  areas  of  100  feet  by  66|  feet,  and  10  have  166|  feet  by 
40  feet.  All  are  7  feet  deep.  Through  these  it  flows  slowly 
and  continuously,  depositing  the  heavier  matter  on  the  way, 
finally  reaching  an  eflluent  drain  which  discharges  the  clari¬ 
fied  sewage  into  the  Blackstone  Kiver. 

The  population  connected  with  the  system  is  about  80,000 
and  the  quantity  of  sewage  treated  daily  about  15|  millions 
of  gallons.  Of  this  amount  about  6^  millions  of  gallons  are 
sewage  proper.  The  remainder  is  principally  clean  brook 
water  and  rain-water,  both  of  which  it  is  proposed  at  an  early 
day  to  exclude  from  the  sewage  by  improvements  now  in 
progress. 

The  sewage  of  Worcester  contains  a  very  large  amount  of 
sulphuric  and  muriatic  acids,  refuse  from  manufacturing 
establishments,  which  it  is  necessary  to  neutralize  in  order 
to  effect  precipitation.  This  necessitates  the  admixture  of 
very  large  amounts  of  lime,  1,030  pounds  being  used  per 
million  gallons  or  about  3,000  tons  per  annum  in  the  year 
1895. 

Whilst  the  same  proportion  of  lime  might  not  be  required 
for  the  sewage  of  Baltimore,  not  complicated  to  the  same  ex¬ 
tent  with  manufacturing  wastes,  yet  taking  the  working  of 
the  Worcester  plant,  said  to  be  very  economically  admin¬ 
istered,  as  a  criterion,  Baltimore  would  require  for  the  50 
million  of  gallons  estimated  to  flow  from  its  330,000  persons 
at  first  installation,  about  25  tons  of  lime  per  day,  or  for  the 
ultimate  one  million  population  about  75  tons  per  day. 

From  recent  reports  from  Worcester  we  learn  that  the 
annual  cost  of  the  purification  of  the  sewage  amounts  to  45 
cents  per  head  of  the  population,  or  to  $6.30  per  million 
gallons  treated.  If  we  apply  the  same  rate  per  million 
gallons  to  the  estimated  amount  of  Baltimore  sewage  when 
330,000  persons  are  connected  with  the  system,  the  annual 
cost  would  be  $114,975.00,  increasing  to  $344,925.00  when 
the  system  serves  one  million  people. 


34 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


FEROZONE  AND  POLARITE  PROCESS.* 

A  modification  of  the  Chemical  Precipitation  method  is 
found  in  a  comparatively  new  process,  first  introduced  at 
Acton,  England,  some  eight  or  nine  years  ago.  Since  then 
it  has  been  adopted  by  some  ten  or  more  English  towns,  in¬ 
cluding  Huddersfield  with  a  population  of  about  100,000, 
and  has  been  authorized  by  the  cities  of  Rouen,  Toulon  and 
Bordeaux,  in  France. 

It  is  known  as  the  Ferozone  and  Polarite  Process ,  and  con¬ 
sists,  after  the  straining  already  mentioned,  in  mixing  with 
the  sewage  in  the  receiving  tanks  a  quantity  of  what  is 
known  in  the  process  as  Ferozone ,  a  composite  substance 
containing  over  25  per  cent,  of  ferrous  sulphate  and  19  per 
cent,  of  magnetic  oxide  of  iron,  with  11  per  cent,  of  aluminum, 
calcium  and  magnesium.  This  acts  both  as  a  disinfectant 
and  coagulant. 

The  sewage  thus  treated  passes  through  the  series  of  set¬ 
tling  basins,  where  the  sludge  is  collected  as  previously  de¬ 
scribed;  but  instead  of  then  discharging  the  effluent,  still 
retaining  about  one-half  of  the  original  organic  matter,  it  is 
conducted  to  a  filter  some  30  or  36  inches  in  depth,  composed 
of  sand  and  gravel,  and  including  10  inches  of  sand  and 
polarite  mixed  in  nearly  equal  proportions. 

Polarite  is  another  compound  containing  about  54  per  cent, 
of  magnetic  oxide  of  iron  and  25  per  cent,  of  silica.  It  is 
practically  insoluble,  and  does  not  appreciably  corrode,  lose 
weight  or  alter  in  any  way.  Its  remarkable  efficiency  seems 
to  be  due  to  its  capacity  to  absorb  or  condense  oxygen  in 
large  volumes,  or  polarize  it,  to  use  the  term  which  comes  to 
us  with  an  account  of  the  process  from  abroad. 

By  means  of  this  property  the  organic  matter  is  oxidized 
or  burnt  in  its  passage  through  the  filter,  and  as  the  polarite 
is  indestructible,  the  action  of  the  filter  may  be  continued 
indefinitely  with  very  brief  periods  of  rest. 

The  investigations  of  noted  scientists  bear  strong  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  value  of  this  process,  which  seems  to  be  sustained 
by  such  men  as  Prof.  Frankland,  Sir  Henry  E.  Roscoe,  Dr. 
Arthur  Angell  and  Messrs.  J.  Garter  Bell  and  Naylor. 

*See  Proceedings  of  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  Vol.  CXVII,  and  Sew¬ 
age  Disposal,  by  W.  Santo  Crimp. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


35 


These  and  other  investigators  have  found  by  this  treat¬ 
ment  a  reduction  varying  from  83  per  cent,  to  98  per  cent,  of 
the  organic  matter  and  from  98  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  of 
the  bacteria  originally  held  by  the  sewage. 

From  Huddersfield,*  where  are  located  the  largest  works 
employing  this  process  thus  far  erected,  we  learn  that  “  the 
system  is  satisfactory  so  far  as  the  capacity  of  the  works 
goes.” 

3rd.  INTERMITTENT  FILTRATION  AND  IRRIGATION 

OF  CROPS. 

The  treatment  of  sewage  by  intermittent  filtration  is  based 
upon  the  ascertained  fact  that  if  decomposing  organic  matter, 
held  in  suspension  in  water,  be  discharged  upon  a  coarse, 
sandy  or  gravelly  soil,  properly  under-drained  so  as  to  act  as 
a  filter,  and  the  water  be  allowed  to  drain  away,  leaving  the 
filter  bed  comparatively  dry,  so  that  the  air  will  have  access 
to  its  interstices,  the  organic  matter  so  deposited  will  be 
effectually  assimilated  by  minute  organisms,  which  will  de¬ 
velop  in  the  bed  under  the  conditions  of  alternate  flooding, 
draining  and  exposure  to  the  air. 

Sewage  thus  treated  may  be  so  thoroughly  purified,  and 
the  effluent  water  pass  off  so  clear  and  limpid,  that  fish  will 
thrive  in  it,  whilst  the  filter  bed  is  continually  renewed  and 
maintained  in  its  original  efficiency  by  short  periods  of  rest, 
aided  perhaps  occasionally  by  a  light  harrowing  of  the  sur¬ 
face. 

Numerous  examples  of  this  method  of  treatment  may  be 
cited  both  in  this  country  and  abroad.  Its  employment,  how¬ 
ever,  at  least  in  the  United  States,  has  never  as  yet  been  on  a 
very  large  scale.  This  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  but 
rarely  can  there  be  found  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  large  city 
a  sufficient  body  of  land  possessing  the  necessary  character¬ 
istics  of  soil,  combined  with  suitable  features  of  surface  and 
drainage  and  still  available  for  such  a  use  at  any  reasonable 
cost. 

Under  this  system  the  sewage  may  be  directly  applied  to 
the  irrigation  of  growing  crops. 


For  a  description  of  these  works,  see  “Industries  and  Iron,”  for  May  1,  1890. 


36 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  economical  results  which  at  first  sight  might  be  antici¬ 
pated  from  this  form  of  disposal  are  not  always  realized,  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  difficult  to  adjust  the  constant  and 
regular  flow  of  the  sewage  to  the  irregularly  intermittent 
requirements  of  the  crop. 

In  periods  of  excessive  rainfall  the  farmer  will  need  no 
additional  irrigation.  To  force  the  sewage  on  his  land  when 
already  surfeited  with  moisture  would  injure  the  crop.  It 
must,  however,  be  disposed  of  somewhere,  and  hence  other 
provision  must  be  made  for  the  whole,  or  very  nearly  the 
whole,  just  as  though  no  portion  were  applied  upon  the  cul¬ 
tivated  land. 

It  may,  nevertheless,  be  possible  to  make  a  portion  of  the 
land  used  for  intermittent  filtration  available  for  the  growth 
of  crops,  but  such  use  will  be  of  an  incidental  character, 
requiring  a  larger  area  of  filtering  ground. 

Where,  however,  the  drainage  of  the  filter  beds  is  not  into 
waters  used  for  drinking  purposes,  and  where,  therefore,  a 
uniformly  high  standard  of  purity  in  the  effluent  is  not  essen¬ 
tial,  a  portion  of  the  filter  beds  may  be  made  to  take  occasion¬ 
ally  a  quantity  of  sewage  in  excess  of  the  normal  allowance, 
thus  admitting  of  a  corresponding  diminution  in  other  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  filtering  area,  and  making  possible  a  special 
regimen  for  that  portion  of  the  ground  devoted  to  agriculture. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  intermittent  filtration  and  irrigation 
are  the  same  in  principle.  With  the  first  the  main  object  is 
to  secure  as  pure  an  effluent  as  may  be  required  with  a  mini¬ 
mum  outlay  for  land.  Hence  rapid  filtration  is  sought  and 
under-drainage  becomes  necessary,  frequently  aided  by  the 
removal  of  the  surface  loam,  some  few  inches  of  which  are 
generally  to  be  found  on  even  the  most  sandy  soils.  Under 
such  conditions  successful  cultivation  of  crops  is  not  always 
well  assured. 

On  the  other  hand,  with  irrigation  a  proper  treatment  of 
the  land  with  reference  to  the  production  of  a  crop  dominates 
the  application  of  the  sewage,  and  the  purity  of  the  effluent 
is  a  secondary  consideration,  or,  if  required,  is  attained  by 
increasing  the  area  over  which  the  sewage  is  distributed. 

The  latter  system  is  in  common  use  in  Great  Britain,  having 
been  employed  for  a  portion  of  the  sew-age  of  Edinburgh  for 
over  twro  centuries,  and  there  being  over  two  hundred  sewage 


FOE  THE  GITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


37 


farms  in  England  alone  at  tlie  present  time,  as  at  Birming¬ 
ham,  Croydon,  Oxford  and  Wigan. 

It  is,  however,  on  the  continent  of  Europe  and  in  the  Aus¬ 
tralian  colonies  of  Great  Britain  that  some  of  the  most  in¬ 
structive  examples  of  this  method  of  sewage  treatment  may 
be  found. 

Berlin,  Paris,  Zurich,  Breslau,  Dantzic,  Freiburg,  Florence, 
in  Europe;  Calcutta,  in  British  India;  Adelaide  and  Mel¬ 
bourne,  in  Australia,  are  all  now  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
discharging  their  sewage  upon  land. 

In  our  own  country  the  defilement  by  sewage  improperly 
disposed  of  has  been  seriously  appreciated  only  within  a  com¬ 
paratively  short  time,  so  that  we  find  fewer  working  examples 
of  land  disposal,  and  none  on  a  scale  at  all  comparable  to 
what  can  be  seen  abroad.  We  may  cite,  however,  Amherst, 
Brockton,  Framingham,  Marlborough,  Gardner,  Lenox,  Med- 
field  and  North  Brookfield,  in  Massachusetts;  Pawtucket,  in 
Rhode  Island;  Altoona  and  Wayne,  in  Pennsylvania;  Bristol 
and  Meriden,  in  Connecticut;  Freehold,  Plainfield,  Princeton 
and  Summit,  in  New  Jersey;  Oberlin,  in  Ohio;  Pullman,  in 
Illinois;  Hastings,  in  Nebraska;  Paris,  in  Texas;  and  Salt 
Lake  City,  in  Utah;  and  must  not  omit  an  example  very  near 
at  home  where,  on  quite  a  small  scale,  the  system  may  be 
found  at  work  at  Roland  Park,  Baltimore  County. 

At  Brockton,  Mass.,*  the  sewage  of  the  city,  containing  in 
1895  a  population  of  some  33,000,  is  being  disposed  of  by 
pumping  to  an  elevation  of  about  forty  feet  to  a  sewage  farm 
of  some  30  acres.  At  the  end  of  1895,  the  date  of  our  latest 
advices,  the  sewer  connections  already  effected  served  not 
more  than  3,000  people,  and  the  daily  flow  of  sewage  to  the 
field  averaged  about  270,000  gallons.  The  sewage  is  reported 
as  highly  diluted  by  the  infiltration  of  ground  water  and  is 
discharged  in  doses  of  from  75,000  gallons  to  100,000  gallons 
upon  23  filtering  beds,  averaging  about  one  acre  each.  Each 
bed  receives  a  dose  every  third  day,  and  for  a  portion  of  the 
year  every  second  day. 

The  cost  for  the  year  1895  of  running  the  pumping  station 
and  the  filter  beds  was  about  f 6,000.  Although  the  severity 

*See  various  Reports  of  the  City  Engineer,  and  Report  of  the  Mass.  State 
Board  of  Health  for  1S95. 


38 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


of  the  winter  climate  of  Brockton  has  interfered  somewhat 
with  the  effective  operation  of  the  system,  it  is  stated  that  no 
nuisance  has  been  occasioned,  and  that  its  working  has  been 
most  satisfactory. 

At  South  Framingham,  Mass.,  a  town  of  something  less 
than  10,000  inhabitants,  there  is  working  a  system  of  filtra¬ 
tion  and  farm  irrigation  which  affords  an  interesting  and 
instructive  illustration  of  what  may  be  effected  by  this 
method  of  treatment. 

The  natural  drainage  of  the  town  being  on  the  watershed 
supplying  the  City  of  Boston,  it  was  determined  that  the  dis¬ 
posal  should  be  on  ground  beyond  this  area.  Under  the 
system  adopted  the  sewage,  from  which  both  storm  and 
ground  water  are  as  far  as  possible  excluded,  is  collected  to 
the  amount,  in  1896,  of  about  460,000  gallons  daily,  and  is 
then  pumped  through  a  12-inch  cast  iron  main,  If  miles  in 
length,  to  an  outfall  40  feet  above,  on  a  farm  of  some  90  acres 
of  porous  sandy  soil,  of  which,  when  visited  in  July,  1896,  by 
a  member  of  this  Commission,  only  20  acres  were  under  cul¬ 
tivation,  and  serving  a  population  connected  with  the  sewers 
estimated  at  7,000. 

A  luxuriant  crop  of  corn  was  under  cultivation,  which  the 
farmer  superintendent  stated  could  at  that  season  take  very 
much  more  sewage  than  the  system  supplied. 

The  effluent  was  examined  and  appeared  to  be  a  clear  and 
inviting  drinking  water,  of  which  the  superintendent  did  not 
hesitate  to  take  a  copious  draught. 

The  working  of  the  system  appeared  to  be,  as  claimed  for 
it,  satisfactory  in  all  particulars.  That  this  is  the  case  may 
be  inferred  from  the  fact  that,  there  being  no  suitable  soil 
available  for  the  filtration  beds  in  the  town  of  Framingham, 
the  required  conditions  were  sought  and  found  in  the  adjoin¬ 
ing  township  of  Natick,  whose  population,  somewhat  indig¬ 
nant  at  first  at  so  unwelcome  an  intrusion,  have  since  become 
not  only  reconciled  thereto,  but  are  now  introducing  a  similar 
system  for  their  own  town  and,  at  the  time  of  the  visit 
referred  to,  were  preparing  a  series  of  filtration  beds  imme¬ 
diately  adjacent  to  the  farm  here  described. 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


39 


PARIS.* 

Paris  is  a  compactly  built  city,  including  some  2-J  millions 
of  inhabitants,  housed  in  but  30  square  miles  of  territory. 
Its  so-called  sewers  were  merely  open  ditches  until  1750, 
when  they  were  superseded  by  covered  channels.  In  1851 
the  first  modem  sewer  was  built  iu  the  Rue  de  Rivoli,  and  in 
1856,  Bel  grand’s  scheme  of  sewerage  was  adopted,  which  has 
since  been  elaborated  into  the  present  magnificent  system. 

Water-closets  not  being  in  use,  the  sewers  were  not  de¬ 
signed  to  take  excreta.  Their  slopes  were  necessarily  flat, 
and  being  liable  to  deposits,  they  were  designed  of  large 
dimensions,  so  that  they  could  be  readily  cleansed  by  hand 
or  by  mechanical  appliances.  This  renders  their  mainten¬ 
ance  costly,  amounting  now  to  a  very  heavy  annual  expendi¬ 
ture. 

There  is  some  compensation  for  this  found  in  the  fact  that 
their  size  makes  it  possible  to  place  in  them  not  only  electric 
and  other  conduits  of  small  size,  but  large  water  mains  as 
well,  which  are  supported  on  brackets  above  the  sewage,  and 
thus  is  avoided  the  constant  disturbance  of  the  street  surface, 
so  destructive  to  all  good  pavements,  and  elsewhere  a  source 
of  heavy  annual  expense. 

A  recent  law  compels  the  use  of  water-closets,  but  thus  far 
the  connections  made  do  not  take  more  than  one-third  of  the 
entire  excreta,  the  remainder  being  still  deposited  in  cess¬ 
pools  as  in  the  past. 

In  1893  the  average  daily  discharge  of  the  system  was 
117,500,000  U.  S.  gallons,  of  which  but  three-fourths  of  one 
per  cent,  was  excretal  matter.  The  sewage  is  collected  along 
with  the  storm  water  by  some  600  miles  of  lateral  sewers 
into  interceptors,  which  are  arranged  with  storm  overflows  to 
discharge  from  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  of  the  storm  water 
into  the  river  Seine.  The  remainder  accompanies  the  sewage 
and  is  lifted  some  33  feet  by  suitable  pumps  and  is  then  dis¬ 
charged  on  irrigation  fields  at  Gennevilliers,  a  suburb  on  the 
river  below  the  city. 

The  work  at  this  point,  commenced  on  a  small  scale  rather 

*  See  “  Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe,”  by  Albert  Shaw  ;  Engin¬ 
eering  News,  Vol.  XXXIV,  p.  121;  Engineering  Record,  Vol.  XXXV,  p.  5,  and 
“  Water  Supply  and  Irrigation  Papers  of  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey”  No.  3,  by 
Geo.  W.  Rafter. 


40 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


experimental] y  and  as  far  back  as  1868,  lias  proved  so  satis¬ 
factory  that  the  city  has  since  increased  the  extent  of  the 
irrigation  fields  to  some  2,000  acres,  and  has  adopted  a  com* 
prehensive  scheme,  now  being  executed  at  a  cost  of  over 
116,000,000,  which  will  dispose  of  all  the  city  sewage  by 
irrigation.  What  cannot  be  utilized  at  Gennevilliers  will  be 
carried  beyond  to  a  sandy  tract  of  land  near  Acheres,  about 
10  miles  below  the  city. 

Here  some  3,800  acres  out  of  a  total  requirement  of  up¬ 
wards  of  8,700  have  already  been  acquired,  which  will  be 
reached  by  a  large  outfall  sewer  having  a  capacity  of  about 
230  million  gallons  per  day  and  involving  a  further  lift  of  the 
sewage  to  a  height  of  118  feet. 

The  experience  thus  far  accumulated  establishes  a  large 
increase  in  the  value  of  land  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  farms, 
which  are  not  operated  by  the  City  of  Paris,  but  are  leased 
to  agriculturists.  There  is  a  marked  improvement  in  the 
health  of  the  locality;  the  death  rate,  formerly  32  per  thou¬ 
sand,  having  fallen  to  less  than  25  per  thousand. 

It  is  found,  too,  that  a  large  variety  of  garden  produce  may 
be  profitably  raised  in  this  way,  and  that  the  use  of  sewage 
for  irrigation  neither  interferes  with  the  salubrity  of  the 
neighborhood,  nor  affects  unfavorably  the  wholesomeness  of 
the  crops  raised  as  food.  The  rough  product  of  the  Genne¬ 
villiers  farms  brings  the  farmers  a  return  of  from  $240  to 
$800  per  acre. 

BERLIN.* 

Berlin  is  a  city  of  nearly  2,000,000  inhabitants  within  an 
area  of  about  24^  square  miles. 

It  is  located  on  the  river  Spree,  which  here  flows  through 
a  valley  from  three  to  four  miles  wide.  Two-thirds  of  the 
total  area  of  the  city  is  found  in  this  valley,  and  the  average 
street  level  of  so  much  of  the  city  is  only  about  10  feet  above 
the  surface  of  the  river. 

The  flow  of  the  Spree  is  very  sluggish  in  ordinary  weather; 
in  periods  of  excessive  drought  it  is  extremely  so.  The  pre¬ 
vailing  condition  made  an  improved  system  of  sewerage  abso¬ 
lutely  necessary.  A  scheme  to  intercept  the  sewage  on  either 
side  of  the  river  and,  conveying  it  below,  to  discharge  it  after 


*  See  Proceedings  of  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  Vol.  CIX;  Engineering 
News,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  139,  and  “Water  Supply  and  Irrigation  Papers  of  the 
U.  S.  Geological  Survey”  No.  3,  by  Geo.  W.  Rafter. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


41 


some  treatment  into  the  Spree,  was  abandoned,  and  in  1873 
the  City  Council  decided  to  employ  sewage  irrigation  as  the 
best  method  of  disposal. 

The  carrying  out  of  this  plan  has  led  to  the  development  of 
the  largest  and  perhaps  the  most  successful  sewage  farm  any¬ 
where  existing. 

The  topography  of  the  city  and  the  high  level  at  which 
the  ground  water  stands  has  made  the  method  of  collecting 
the  sewage  somewhat  peculiar.  It  has  been  found  expedient 
that  each  of  the  twelve  drainage  districts  into  which  the  city 
has  been  divided  should  have  its  own  pumping  station, 
whence  the  sewage  is  lifted  to  the  sewage  farms,  located  on 
the  high  ground  to  the  north  and  south  of  the  valley,  the 
heights  of  which  are  some  eighty  feet  and  fifty  feet  respec¬ 
tively  above  the  river. 

The  farm  lands  have  been  purchased  and  are  owned  by  the 
city,  and  from  a  beginning  in  1874  of  2,000  acres,  now  amount 
to  upwards  of  22,000  acres. 

Of  this  area  about  22  per  cent,  is  taken  up  by  parks,  woods, 
gardens,  roads  and  buildings,  and  the  area  actually  farmed 
may  be  set  down  as  about  17,500  acres,  of  which  about  16,600 
acres  have  been  prepared  by  under-drainage.  This  is  made 
necessary  by  the  soil  being  less  permeable  than  could  be 
desired  and  resting  at  a  depth  of  from  3^  to  5  feet  upon  a  bed 
of  quite  impervious  material. 

A  portion  of  the  farm  lands,  some  2,200  acres  in  1890,  is 
rented  out  to  gardeners  and  small  farmers,  whose  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  the  value  of  the  irrigation  is  shown  by  their  paying 
as  annual  rental  for  land  duly  prepared  for  irrigation  $21.50 
per  acre,  whilst  for  unprepared  land  the  rate  is  but  $8.80 
per  acre. 

The  total  sewage  disposed  of  during  the  year  1893-4  aver¬ 
aged  46  millions  of  gallons  per  day,  which  was  delivered 
upon  11,542  acres,  or  about  4,000  gallons  per  acre  per  day,  and 
was  derived  from  about  1,600,000  population  at  the  rate  of 
about  28  gallons  per  head.  The  water  consumption  per  head 
being  but  18  gallons,  the  remaining  ten  gallons  are  due  to 
rainfall  and  other  sources. 

Upwards  of  400  acres  are  held  in  reserve  as  filtration  areas, 
upon  which  to  discharge  excess  of  storm  water  in  summer. 
These  are  arranged  in  plots  of  from  5  to  22  acres  each,  sur¬ 
rounded  on  all  sides  by  embankments  about  3  feet  in  height, 
and,  under  the  name  of  tanks,  serve  in  winter  to  receive  the 


42 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


sewage  wlien  the  surface  of  the  irrigation  fields  may  be  so 
frozen  as  to  prevent  filtration  through  them. 

The  effluent  from  the  farms  is  purified  to  such  degree  that 
as  a  rule  it  passes  off  clear  and  transparent,  and  we  are  told 
that  fish  thrive  in  it. 

The  sanitary  condition  of  the  Berlin  farms  is  reported  as 
being  very  satisfactory,  and  the  health  of  the  people  good, 
although  a  large  number  of  them  are  from  a  class  of  petty 
delinquents,  such  as  our  tramps,  whose  habits  of  life  are  not 
favorable  to  health. 

The  general  salubrity  of  the  farms  may  be  further  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  four  homes  for  convalescents,  with  two 
hundred  and  eighty-six  beds  in  all,  have  been  established  on 
the  farms,  and  are  supplied  with  water  by  wells  sunk  on  the 
spot. 

A  most  interesting  and  important  fact  connected  with  the 
improved  sewerage  of  Berlin  is  found  in  the  greatly  reduced 
death  rate  which  has  attended  the  development  of  the  system. 

In  1875,  when  but  57  houses  were  connected  with  the  sew¬ 
ers,  the  annual  death  rate  was  32.9  per  1,000;  whilst  in  1892 
with  22,012  connections  the  rate  was  reduced  to  20.2  per 
1,000. 

The  entire  cost  of  construction  of  this  system  has  been,  up 


to  the  present  year — 

For  the  collection  system . 114,125,000 

For  pumping  plant  and  delivery  of  the 

sewage  to  the  farms .  4,850,000 

Cost  of  the  farm  lands .  4,350,000 


Preparation  of  the  land  and  farm  plant . .  3,300,000 

$26,625,000 

For  the  year  1893-94  the  cost  of  working  the  system  was— 
For  maintenance  of  the  sewers  and  pumps 

and  operating  the  same . $  337,000 

Maintenance  and  working  the  farms  ....  510,000 

Interest  on  capital  outlay,  including  sink¬ 
ing  fund .  1,046,000 


This  outlay  was  met  as  follows: 
Sewer  tax  on  22,091  house  con¬ 
nections  . 

Produce  and  rental  of  farms.  .v. . 


11,893,000 


1732,000 

446,000  1,178,000 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


43 


MELBOURNE.  * 

The  City  of  Melbourne,  Australia,  is  just  completing  a  com¬ 
prehensive  system  of  sewerage  which,  from  the  striking*  simi¬ 
larity  of  many  of  its  prevailing  conditions  to  those  of  Balii- 
more,  is  of  particular  interest. 

The  city  proper,  with  an  area  of  but  7.4  square  miles  and 
a  population  in  1890  of  76,500,  forms  part  of  a  populous 
district  which,  within  an  area  of  134  square  miles,  includes 
some  six  cities  and  an  equal  number  each  of  towns,  boroughs 
and  shires,  with  an  aggregate  population  of  about  430,000  at 
the  date  named,  of  whom  about  281,000  persons  are  resident 
upon  21  square  miles. 

The  area  dealt  with  by  the  system  is  intersected  by  the 
river  Yarra  and  its  tributaries,  whose  mouth  is  in  the  harbor 
at  the  head  of  Port  Phillip  Bay,  and  distant  34  miles  in  a 
direct  line  from  the  ocean. 

The  bay  has  an  area  of  about  720  square  miles,  with  an 
entrance  from  the  ocean  only  two  miles  in  width. 

Within  the  heads  or  capes  of  the  bay  the  sectional  area 
increases  so  rapidly  that,  though  the  ocean  tide  rises  some 
seven  feet  and  gives  a  velocity  through  the  heads  of  6|  miles 
per  hour,  the  currents  within  the  bay  are  very  sluggish  and, 
excepting  as  influenced  by  winds,  are  practically  simple  up 
and  down  movements,  and  are  deemed  utterly  useless  for 
carrying  to  the  ocean  the  matter  discharged  into  the  bay, 
even  with  the  aid  of  the  flow  of  the  river  Yarra. 

This  presents  such  a  condition  as  we  find  in  our  harbor  and 
river  at  home,  and  the  discharge  of  waste  of  all  kinds,  in¬ 
cluding  the  overflow  of  cesspools  into  the  Yarra  and  the 
harbor,  had  produced  in  1889  similar  results  to  those  we  have 
experienced  in  our  Jones’  Falls  and  harbor,  and  the  nuisance 
had  become  of  such  magnitude  as  to  require  abatement. 

After  much  preliminary  consideration,  the  distinguished 
civil  engineer  Mr.  James  Mansergh,  M.  I.  C.  E.,  was  engaged 
to  visit  Melbourne  and  prepare  a  report  on  the  sewerage  of 
the  city  and  the  disposal  of  the  sewage. 

The  report  prepared  by  Mr.  Mansergh  is  very  full,  and  for 

*See  Report  on  the  Sewerage  and  Sewage  Disposal  of  the  proposed  Melbourne 
Metropolitan  District,  by  Janies  Mansergh,  M.  I.  C.  E.,  1890,  with  subsequent 
Reports  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Melbourne  and  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works. 


44 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


us  particularly  instructive.  He  recognizes  that  storm  water 
should  he  excluded  from  the  new  sewers  as  far  as  may  he, 
though  he  provides  for  one-tenth  of  an  inch  per  day  of  rain¬ 
fall  from  the  whole  area.  He  states  that  after  a  long  ex¬ 
perience  there  are  left  hut  three  methods  of  sewage  disposal 
from  which  to  select,  depending  on  the  varying  situations  and 
circumstances  of  the  city  or  town  to  he  dealt  with.  These 
are: 

“  1st.  Discharge  of  the  sewage  in  its  natural  untreated  con¬ 
dition  into  the  sea  or  a  large  tidal  river. 

“2nd.  The  removal  of  the  suspended  solids  and  a  part  of 
the  dissolved  impurities  in  the  process  of  precipitation  by 
means  of  chemical  reagents;  the  discharge  of  the  clarified 
liquid  into  the  natural  watercourses,  and  the  disposal  of  the 
precipitate,  either  usefully  or  otherwise,  upon  land. 

“3rd.  Passing  the  sewage  over  land  for  the  irrigation  of 
growing  crops  and  the  filtration  of  the  liquid  through  the  sub¬ 
soil.^ 

Mr.  Mansergh  found  it  clear  to  his  mind  that  there  was  no 
point  in  Port  Phillip  Bay  where  the  sewage  could  he  dis¬ 
charged  with  impunity. 

An  examination  and  estimate  confirmed  the  first  impres¬ 
sion  that  to  discharge  into  the  ocean  involved  a  length  and 
cost  of  outfall  sewer  quite  prohibitory. 

Chemical  treatment  was  considered  and  its  cost  worked 
out,  but  was  not  found  to  be  advantageous. 

The  plan  recommended  was  for  disposal  of  the  sewage  upon 
land;  about  58  per  cent,  of  the  whole  to  be  pumped  against 
a  head  of  96  feet  into  an  eastern  outfall  sewer  and  delivered 
on  a  sewage  farm  distant  about  12  miles  from  the  pumping- 
station  ;  the  remaining  42  per  cent,  to  be  pumped  against  a 
head  of  116  feet  through  a  western  outfall  sewer  to  another 
sewage  farm  on  the  opposite  or  western  shore  of  the  bay, 
distant  from  its  pumping  station  about  14J  miles. 

Mr.  Mansergh  estimated  the  cost  of  the  works,  developed 
to  the  extent  required  for  a  population  of  509,000  in  1898,  at 
a  total  (in  our  currency)  of  $25,150,000,  and  disposing  of  a 
daily  flow  of  sewage  of  45,854,000  U.  S.  gallons,  at  an  annual 
cost  for  operation  and  maintenance  of  $841,000. 

The  scheme  was  planned  to  be  adequate  for  the  develop¬ 
ment  and  growth  of  the  district  as  forecast  for  about  50 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


45 


years  wlien,  in  the  year  1939,  the  population  might  be  1,680,- 
000,  and  the  sewage  to  be  disposed  of  each  day  151,167,000 
U.  S.  gallons. 

The  estimated  capital  cost  of  the  plant  for  such  computed 
service  was  f 29, 082, 000,  and  the  annual  cost  of  operation  and 
maintenance  f 1,278, 000. 

The  plan  presented  by  Mr.  Mansergh  has  been  somewhat 
modified  and  its  estimated  cost  reduced  by  the  more  detailed 
investigation  of  the  engineer  entrusted  with  the  execution  of 
the  work.  It  is  being  carried  out  on  a  basis  providing  for 
the  delivery  of  the  whole  of  the  sewage  to  but  one  sewage 
farm,  for  which  upwards  of  8,500  acres  have  already  been 
acquired,  and  of  which  some  3,600  acres  are  under  cultivation, 
mostly  under  lease  from  the  city,  with  provision  for  an  ulti¬ 
mate  population  of  but  1,000,000  instead  of  1,680,00,  as  figured 
by  Mr.  Mansergh. 

The  cost  of  the  system  as  modified  has  been  so  much  re¬ 
duced  that  the  estimated  cost  in  1898  for  the  service  of 
509,000  population  is  given  at  $17,655,000,  a  reduction  of 
$7,495,000  from  the  original  estimate  of  Mr.  Mansergh. 

We  do  not  find  any  estimate  of  the  ultimate  cost  of  the 
revised  system  when  extended  for  1,000,000  population,  but 
it  is  stated  that  the  additions  and  extensions  can  be  readily 
made  as  required  without  an  undue  proportion  of  additional 
cost. 

The  experience  of  Melbourne  serves  further  to  illustrate  the 
great  importance  of  a  thorough  and  most  careful  revision  of 
preliminary  plans  before  undertaking  the  execution  of  such 
important  and  costly  work. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  PROBLEM. 

The  questions  which  your  Commission  is  expected  to  report 
upon  include  the  mode  of  collection  of  the  sewage,  the  align¬ 
ment,  gradients  and  dimensions  of  the  intercepting  sewers, 
the  amount  of  pumping  involved,  and  are  dominated  by  the 
all-important  one  of  final  disposal. 

To  aid  in  the  determination  of  these  questions  and  to 
arrive  at  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  cost  of  constructing 
the  necessary  works,  your  Commission,  in  May,  1894,  called 
to  its  aid  as  Consulting  Engineer,  Mr.  Samuel  M.  Gray,  M. 


4G 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Am.  Soc.  0.  E.,  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  and  in  April,  1895, 
secured  in  the  same  capacity  the  services  of  Mr.  Rudolph 
Hering,  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  of  New  York.  Both  are  men  of 
eminence  in  their  profession  and  are  recognized  experts  in 
sewerage  work. 

The  Commission  also  engaged  in  September,  1895,  as  its 
Principal  Assistant  Engineer,  Mr.  Kenneth  Allen,  M.  Am. 
Soc.  C.  E.,  Avho  has  conducted,  in  the  office  of  the  Commission, 
and  with  the  aid  of  assistants  in  the  office  or  in  the  field,  as 
from  time  to  time  required,  all  the  investigations  called  for 
by  the  Commission,  whether  for  its  own  information  or  to 
supply  additional  data  needed  by  the  Consulting  Engineers. 
Amongst  other  duties  it  has  devolved  upon  this  officer  to 
investigate  questions  regarding  the  sufficiency  of  the  existing 
storm-water  drains,  with  the  extensions  and  additions  re¬ 
quired  therefor.  His  report  to  the  Commission  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  will  be  found  in  Appendix  B  to  this  Report. 

The  Consulting  Engineers  were  each  requested  to  consider 
the  sewerage  of  the  city  in  all  its  bearings,  and  to  advise  the 
Commission  as  to  the  best  method  in  his  judgment  of  col¬ 
lecting  and  disposing  of  the  sewage  and  storm  water  of  the 
city,  to  meet  present  requirements  and  to  be  capable  of  ex¬ 
pansion  and  development,  as  exigencies  of  a  growing  city  and 
an  increasing  population  may  make  necessary.  They  were 
requested  to  give  reasons  for  the  conclusions  at  which  they 
might  arrive,  with  drawings  and  plans  of  the  schemes  they 
might  present,  together  with  estimates  of  the  cost  of  carrying 
the  same  into  effect. 

The  making  of  surveys  and  collection  of  further  data,  as 
called  for  from  time  to  time  by  the  Consulting  Engineers, 
with  the  making  of  the  necessary  maps  to  elucidate  them, 
lias  been  followed  on  the  part  of  these  gentlemen  by  their 
consideration  and  investigation  of  the  various  problems  in¬ 
volved,  and  we  now  have  before  us  their  full  report  and 
recommendations,  which  are  submitted  herewith — Appen¬ 
dix  C. 

It  was  understood  between  your  Commission  and  the  Con¬ 
sulting  Engineers  that,  whilst  they  were  free  to  consult  and 
work  together  as  might  best  suit  the  convenience  of  all  con¬ 
cerned,  the  conclusions  at  which  they  might  arrive  were  to 
be  their  individual  opinions,  which  might  or  might  not  be 


for  the  City  of  Baltimore 


4? 


identical.  As  the  result  of  their  investigations  the  views  of 
the  Consulting  Engineers  are  in  such  complete  accord  that 
they  have  been  able  to  make  a  joint  report  and  unite  in  the 
plans,  estimates  and  recommendations,  with  which  it  is  con¬ 
cluded. 

The  Engineers,  after  discussing  fully  the  existing  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  problem,  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  separate  system  is  more  urgently  required  here 
than  in  any  other  city  of  the  United  States,  not  already 
provided  with  a  modern  system  of  sewers,  and  find  that  an 
allowance  of  150  gallons  per  head  of  population,  per  day,  is 
an  amount  both  reasonable  and  sufficient,  not  only  at  the 
present  time,  but  should  be  adequate  for  the  future  estimated 
population  of  one  million. 

They  then  take  up  three  different  methods  of  disposing  of 
this  amount  of  sewage,  together  with  a  fourth  plan,  a  combi¬ 
nation  of  two  of  the  methods. 

These  will  hereafter  be  referred  to  respectively  as  Projects 
A,  B,  C,  and  D. 

First.  Project  A. 

This  disposes  of  the  sewage  through  dilution,  by  discharg¬ 
ing  it  into  Chesapeake  Bay,  off  North  Point,  at  a  distance 
from  the  shore  line  of  from  5,000  feet  to  12,500  feet. 

Second.  Project  B. 

This  employs  the  process  of  chemical  precipitation.  Under 
it  the  sewage  is  treated  by  a  special  plant  at  or  near  Colgate 
Creek,  on  the  north  side  of  the  Patapsco,  the  effluent  being 
discharged  temporarily  at  that  point  and  eventually  at  North 
Point. 

Third.  Project  C. 

This  plan  treats  the  sewage  by  filtration  upon  land,  of 
which  quantity  and  quality  sufficient  and  suitable  have  been 
found  in  Anne  Arundel  county,  and  will  discharge  the  puri¬ 
fied  effluent  into  streams  emptying  into  the  Patapsco  or  into 
Magothy  river. 

Fourth.  Project  D. 

This  combines  with  an  ultimate  use  of  Project  C  a  tempo¬ 
rary  employment  of  chemical  precipitation  by  a  plant  located 


48 


REPORT  .  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


on  the  shore  of  Patapsco  river  near  Ferry  Point,  discharging 
the  ontfall  into  the  river.  The  only  object  of  this  is  to  defer 
any  outlay  for  the  heavy  work  required,  even  for  the  partial 
development  of  the  outfall  under  Project  C,  until  such  time  as 
the  growth  of  the  population  connected  with  the  system 
makes  necessary  the  construction  of  the  entire  plant  of  the 
filtration  system  under  Project  C. 

Some  portions  of  the  works  required  by  the  several  pro¬ 
jects,  such  as  the  intercepting  sewers,  the  pumping  stations, 
and,  in  the  case  of  Project  A,  the  main  outfall  sewer,  will 
have  to  be  built  at  once;  whilst  other  portions,  such  as  the 
pumping  machinery,  an  additional  outlet  pipe  into  Chesa¬ 
peake  Bay,  the  chemical  precipitation  plant,  the  siphon  under 
the  Patapsco  at  Ferry  Point,  the  force  mains  to  Anne  Arun¬ 
del  filtration  fields,  and  these  fields  themselves,  may  all  be 
constructed,  developed  or  acquired  gradually,  somewhat  in 
proportion  to  the  increase  of  population  connected  with  the 
sewers. 

The  Consulting  Engineers  have,  therefore,  estimated  the 
cost  of  the  several  projects  in  two  forms: 

(a) .  For  the  works  necessary  to  give  proper  disposal  to 
the  sewage  of  the  present  population,  or  such  portion  of  it  as 
can  be  brought  into  connection  with  the  system  by  the  time 
the  system  is  ready  to  receive  the  sewage,  and  for  a  few  years 
thereafter.  They  assume  that  the  population  thus  to  be 
served  will  not  for  some  time  exceed  one-third  of  the  ultimate 
population  of  one  million,  or  say,  330,000. 

(b) .  For  the  works  required  to  give  full  and  adequate  dis¬ 
posal  to  the  sewage  for  the  whole  city  and  its  assumed  future 
population  of  one  million. 

Estimates  have  also  been  submitted  of  the  annual  cost  of 
operation,  depreciation  and  repairs. 

Consideration  of  interest  and  sinking  fund  is  omitted  for 
the  purpose  of  a  first  comparison  in  the  following  table: 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


49 


COST  OF  THE  SEVERAL  PROJECTS  AS  PRESENTED 
BY  THE  CONSULTING  ENGINEERS. 


Interest  and  Sinking  Fund  not  here  included. 


a — First  Installation. 
330,000  Population. 

b — Completed  Works. 
1,000,000  Popiilation. 

PROJECT. 

\ 

Cost  of 
Construc¬ 
tion. 

Annual  cost 
of  Opera¬ 
tion,  Depre¬ 
ciation  and 
Repairs. 

Cost  of 
Construc¬ 
tion. 

Annual  cost 
of  Opera¬ 
tion,  Depre¬ 
ciation  and 
Repairs. 

A  Oil  ti  nil 

S3  8  SO  167 

$58,491.91 

165,894.02 

$5,129,167 

5,503,000 

$85,289.91 

444,871.99 

p 

B — Precipitation . 

2,962,000 

C — Filtration . 

5,741,007 

173,111.65 

12,171,803 

426,171.62 

D — Filtration  with  temporary 
precipitation . 

3,019,012 

180,594.34 

12,550,891 

426,171.62 

The  relative  cost  of  constructing  these  several  projects  and 
of  operating  them  respectively,  taking  Project  A  at  100,  and 
without  consideration  of  interest  and  sinking  fund,  is  shown 
to  be  as  follows : 


PROJECT. 

a-  -First  Installation. 

b — Works  Completed. 

Construc¬ 

tion. 

Operation. 

Construc¬ 

tion. 

Operation. 

A — Dilution . 

100 

100 

100 

100 

B — Precipitation . 

76 

283 

107 

521 

C — Filtration . 

148 

296 

237 

500 

D — Filtration  with  temporary 
precipitation . 

78 

309 

244 

500 

It  thus  appears  that,  whilst  Project  B  costs  24  per  cent, 
less  than  A  for  first  installation  and  but  7  per  cent,  more 
than  A  for  the  completed  works,  its  annual  operation  (neg¬ 
lecting  interest)  will  exceed  that  of  A  183  per  cent,  at  the 
outstart  and  421  per  cent,  at  a  later  period. 


50 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


As  compared  with  C,  we  find  the  latter  costs  48  per  cent, 
more  for  first  installation  and  137  per  cent,  more  eventually; 
whilst  its  annual  operation  (neglecting  interest)  costs  196 
per  cent,  more  at  the  outstart  and  400  per  cent,  more  when 
completed. 

As  compared  with  D,  we  find  the  latter  to  cost  22  per  cent, 
less  than  A  for  first  installation,  but  144  per  cent,  more  for 
the  completed  works;  whilst  for  its  annual  operation  (still 
omitting  interest),  we  find  it  to  cost  209  per  cent,  more  at 
the  outstart  and  400  per  cent,  more  when  all  works  are  com¬ 
pleted. 

It  would  thus  appear  that  on  the  estimates  furnished,  if 
cost  of  construction  and  operation  is  to  be  considered,  Pro¬ 
ject  A,  Dilution,  with  discharge  into  Chesapeake  Bay,  is 
much  the  most  economical  of  the  several  schemes. 

The  Report  of  the  Consulting  Engineers,  nevertheless,  does 
not  recommend  Project  A,  but  does  recommend  disposal  of 
the  sewage  by  filtration  upon  the  sandy  territory  in  Anne 
Arundel  county,  Project  C,  as  the  best  solution  of  the  problem 
for  all  time. 

It  now  devolves  upon  your  Commission,  with  the  aid  which 
the  professional  skill  and  experience  of  its  Consulting  Engi¬ 
neers  has  brought  to  its  assistance,  to  present  its  own  study 
of  the  subject,  together  with  its  conclusions  and  recommen¬ 
dations. 

RELATIVE  MERITS  OF  THE  VARIOUS  METHODS  OF 
DISPOSAL  MORE  OR  LESS  SUITABLE  UNDER 
OUR  EXISTING  CONDITIONS. 

It  has  been  shown  that  there  are  practically  but  three 
methods  of  sewage  disposal  known  to  the  science  of  the  day. 
These  are  dilution,  chemical  precipitation,  and  filtration 
through  the  soil. 

The  applicability  of  each  of  these  to  the  conditions  exist¬ 
ing  at  Baltimore  will  now  be  considered. 

DILUTION. 

Patapsco  River. 

It  needs  no  further  argument  to  show  that  there  is  neither 
sufficient  fluvial  nor  tidal  current  in  the  Patapsco  river  to 
dilute  and  dispose  of  the  sewage  by  discharge  into  the  river. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


51 


We  are  told  bv  tlie  Consulting  Engineers  that  a  minimum 
flow  of  3  cubic  feet  per  second  is  essential  to  dispose  of  the 
sewage  of  1,000  persons,  whilst  their  investigations  show 
that  the  minimum  fluvial  flow  of  the  Patapsco  may  be  taken 
at  111  cubic  feet  per  second.  On  these  assumptions  they 
further  indicate  that  the  Patapsco  might  receive  without 
becoming  offensive  the  sewage  of  not  more  than  37,000 
persons,  whilst  we  have  over  500,000  to  provide  for  at  present, 
and  more  in  the  future. 


Back  River. 

A  discharge  into  Back  River  has  been  considered,  but 
found  quite  inadmissible.  Whilst  the  whole  of  the  sewage 
might  be  conveyed,  and  four-fifths  of  it  by  gravity,  to  a  point 
on  this  arm  of  the  bay,  distant  from  the  eastern  limits  of -the 
city  about  seven  miles,  yet  the  result  would  be  to  make  a 
perpetual  nuisance  of  this  inlet,  now  a  popular  and  rapidly 
improving  pleasure  resort.  There  is  no  current  to  sweep  out 
the  offensive  matter  into  the  bay,  so  that  it  will  collect  if 
discharged  there,  and  convert  Back  River  into  a  large  cess¬ 
pool,  to  the  ruin  of  all  the  interests  which  now  find  there  both 
pleasure  and  profit. 


Chesapeake  Bay. 

The  only  other  possibility  of  crude  disposal  is  a  discharge 
into  Chesapeake  Bay,  off  North  Point,  or  in  that  vicinity. 

This  outfall  was  recommended  by  Mr.  Charles  H.  Latrobe, 
M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  in  his  report  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council 
in  1881. 

It  has  now  again  been  investigated  after  making  the  neces¬ 
sary  surveys,  and  is  reported  upon  by  the  Consulting  Engi¬ 
neers,  being  Project  A,  already  referred  to. 

It  is  found  that  after  lifting  through  52  feet  the  low-level 
sewage,  which  will  ultimately  not  exceed  one-fourtli  of  the 
total,  the  whole  volume  may  be  conveyed  by  gravity  to  an 
outfall  point  on  the  shore  of  the  bay  north  and  east  of  North 
Point,  and  distant  about  30  miles  from  the  head  of  the  bay, 
where  empties  the  Susquehanna  river. 

This  river  drains  a  territory  of  some  27,000  square  miles, 


52 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


and  lias  an  ordinary  dry  weatlier  flow  estimated  at  from 
15,000  to  35,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

By  a  gauging  made  in  tlie  summer  of  1895,  by  Mr.  James  H. 
Harlow,  M.  Am.  Soc.  0.  E.,  at  Marietta,  a  point  on  the  river 
some  44  miles  above  its  mouth,  and  during  a  stage  of  water 
lower  than  any  noted  by  records  kept  continuously  at  Harris¬ 
burg,  Pennsylvania,  since  1803,  he  estimates  the  flow  at  the 
State  line,  some  14  miles  above  the  mouth  of  the  river,  to  be 
6,500  cubic  feet  per  second. 

The  width  of  the  bay  at  the  sewer  outfall  is  about  9  miles, 
and  the  nearest  shore  line  to  the  southward  is  found  at  Bod¬ 
kin  Point,  distant  over  five  miles,  with  the  channel  of  the 
Patapsco  river  intervening.  See  Plate  II. 

The  depth  of  water  on  the  line  of  the  sewer  outfall  pipes 
of  Project  A  is  only  6  feet  at  a  distance  of  one  quarter  of  a 
mile  from  the  shore,  12  feet  at  a  distance  of  half  a  mile  and 
14  feet  at  seven-eighths  of  a  mile,  increasing  to  16  feet  at  a 
distance  of  a  mile  and  a  half  and  to  18  feet  at  about  2  miles 
from  the  shore. 

Whilst  the  principal  channel  is  along  the  eastern  shore  of 
the  bay,  where  from  30  to  40  feet  of  water  may  be  found, 
yet  the  less  important  channel  into  which  the  sewage  would 
be  discharged  by  Project  A  is  believed  to  afford  sufficient 
current  to  effect  thoroughly  and  completely  the  dilution  of 
all  the  sewage  which  can  be  there  delivered  by  the  City  of 
Baltimore. 

This  current,  which  was  investigated  by  Gen.  Wm.  P. 
Craighill,  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A.,  when  in  charge  of  the 
approaches  to  the  harbor  of  Baltimore,  and  of  which  the 
results  were  kindly  placed  at  the  service  of  your  Commission, 
was  quite  sufficient  to  cause  some  trouble  by  the  silt  which 
it  brought  down  and  deposited  in  the  Brewerton  Channel 
extended. 

Its  evil  effects  were  remedied  by  the  excavation  of  the 
Craighill  Channel,  and  the  Cut-off  Channel,  the  latter  on  a 
line  approximately  parallel  to  the  direction  of  the  current, 
somewhat  deflected  to  the  eastward  by  that  of  the  Patapsco. 

As  there  are  no  exposed  shores  on  which  the  crude  sewage 
might  impinge,  it  does  not  seem  possible  that  there  could  be 
any  offense  to  the  human  senses  by  its  discharge  into  the 
waters  of  the  bay  under  Project  A. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


kq 

•Jr  ) 


OYSTER  INTERESTS. 

That  no  aspect  of  the  subject  shall,  however,  escape  due 
attention,  it  is  proper  here  to  consider  whether  a  discharge 
at  North  Point  can  in  any  way  injuriously  affect  the  oyster 
interests,  which  are  of  paramount  commercial  importance  to 
the  State  of  Maryland.  * 

It  has  been  stated  by  Mr.  Charles  H.  Stevenson  *  that 
“  the  water  area  of  Maryland  is  the  greatest  oyster  produc¬ 
ing  region  in  the  world,  and  the  output  of  the  industry  is 
fully  equal  in  value  to  one-sixth  of  the  product  of  all  the 
fisheries  of  the  United  States  combined,  giving  employment 
to  one-fifth  of  the  persons  engaged  therein.”  He  further 
states  that  in  1892  Maryland  produced  11,632,730  bushels  of 
oysters,  with  a  value  of  $5,866,120,  being  over  39  per  cent,  of 
the  entire  oyster  production  of  the  United  States  and  about 
one-third  of  that  of  the  entire  world. 

So  important  an  industry  should  not  only  be  carefully 
guarded  against  actual  injury,  but  every  precaution  should 
be  taken  that  there  need  be  no  apprehension  whatever  of 
damage  thereto. 

The  oyster  grounds  of  Maryland  at  one  time  extended  from 
the  Virginia  State  line  to  the  Susquehanna  river,  but  we  are 
told  that  “  rarely  in  recent  years  have  any  of  the  oystermen 
resorted  to  the  reefs  situated  about  PooPs  Island  and  north 
of  Swan  Point,”  which  latter  is  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
bay  directly  opposite  North  Point. 

That  few  are  now  taken  there  is  attributed  by  Mr.  Steven¬ 
son  not  to  over-fishing,  as  popularly  supposed,  but  to  the 
change  in  the  quantity  of  fresh  water  flowing  into  the  bay 
and  the  increased  volume  of  the  spring  freshets. 

It  has  been  stated  by  a  gentleman  engaged  in  the  oyster 
traffic  that  the  great  freshet  of  1889  in  the  Susquehanna  com¬ 
pletely  destroyed  the  oysters  on  the  “ lumps”  in  that  part  of 
the  bay,  and  although  there  has  been  a  partial  recovery,  it  is 
understood  that  the  beds  have  been  but  little  worked  since. 

Until  recent  years  the  oyster  has  been  free  from  suspicion 
as  a  vehicle  for  the  transmission  of  communicable  disease. 
In  the  report  of  the  State  Board  of  Health  of  the  State  of 

*  The  Oyster  Industry  of  Maryland,  by  Charles" [IT.  Stevenson,  pp.  208-297  of 
Bulletin  of  U.  S.  Fish  Commission,  1892. 


54 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Connecticut  for  tlie  year  1894  we  have  an  account  of  an  out¬ 
break  of  typhoid  fever  which  occurred  at  Wesleyan  Univer¬ 
sity,  Middletown,  Connecticut,  in  October,  1893,  and  which 
was  most  carefully  and  with  great  precision  traced  to  its 
cause.  It  was  established  that  out  of  100  students  who  on 
the  same  night  at  certain  club  suppers  partook  of  raw  oysters, 
25  were  taken  with  typhoid  fever,  whilst  of  those  who  ate  the 
oysters  cooked  none  suffered. 

These  oysters  were  traced  to  a  particular  lot  which,  taken 
from  the  deeper  waters  of  Long  Island  Sound,  were  deposited 
for  a  day  or  two  in  a  fresh  water  creek  at  Fair  Haven  to 
“  fatten,”  and  had  been  placed  as  close  as  250  feet  from  the 
outlet  of  a  private  sewer  which  drained  a  house  in  which 
were  two  persons  suffering  from  typhoid  fever. 

The  notoriety  attending  this  case  has  led  to  much  investi¬ 
gation  both  at  home  and  abroad.  The  State  Board  of  Health 
of  Connecticut  discusses  it  in  its  reports  for  1894  and  1895. 
In  the  Twenty-fourth  Annual  Report  of  the  Local  Government 
Board  (England  and  Wales),  being  entitled  “  Report  and 
Papers  on  the  Cultivation  and  Storage  of  Oysters  and  certain 
other  Molluscs  in  relation  to  the  Occurrence  of  Disease  in 
Man,”  submitted  by  Dr.  R.  T.  Thorn,  we  find  an  extended  ref¬ 
erence  to  and  discussion  of  this  case,  together  with  a  detailed 
inquiry  conducted  by  Dr.  H.  T.  Bulstrode,  into  all  the  oyster 
beds  surrounding  the  English  and  Welsh  coasts. 

We  find  also  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Academie  de  Mede- 
cine  of  Paris  a  memoir  by  Dr.  Chantemesse  upon  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  oysters  and  typhoid  fever  with  reference  to  the 
W esleyan  case. 

The  subject  has  been  receiving,  altogether,  much  attention 
recently  in  scientific  circles.  A  paper  relating  to  it  was  sub¬ 
mitted  by  Prof.  R.  Boyce  and  discussed  at  the  Liverpool 
meeting  of  the  British  Association  in  September  last.  It 
has  also  been  discussed  elsewhere  *  by  Profs.  T.  E.  Thorpe 
and  W.  A.  Herdman.  The  last-named  cites  many  points 
which  lie  believes  have  been  fully  demonstrated.  Amongst 
others,  the  following  have  application  to  the  matter  we  are 
considering: 

“The  beneficial  effect  of  free  change  of  water  round  the 
ovsters.” 

ft/ 


*  Nature,  Vol.  55,  pp.  105-107  and  293. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


55 


“Tlie  fact  that  the  typhoid  bacillus  does  not  flourish  in 
sea  water.  There  is  no  initial  or  subsequent  multiplication ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  die  off  very  rapidly  as  time  in¬ 
creases  after  inoculation; ” 

“  The  fact  that  the  typhoid  bacillus  does  not  multiply  in 
the  stomach  or  tissues  of  the  oyster.” 

“  The  possibility  of  getting  rid  of  bacterial  infection  by 
placing  the  oyster  in  a  stream  of  running  water.  There  is  a 
great  diminution  or  total  disappearance  of  the  typhoid  bacil¬ 
lus  under  these  circumstances  in  from  one  to  seven  days.” 

e/ 

The  conclusions  at  which  the  several  investigators  seem 
to  arrive  are,  that  the  oyster  is  liable  to  ■temporary  contami¬ 
nation  by  exposure  to  contact  with  sewage,  and  that  either 
the  use  of  such  oysters  should  be  interdicted  or,  in  order  to 
render  them  safe  for  use  in  the  raw  state,  they  should  be 
given  a  clean-sing  by  transferring  them  for  some  time  to  a 
current  of  water  free  from  pollution. 

Dr.  Thorn  in  his  report  further  states:  “So  also  the  dilu¬ 
tion  of  the  sewage  is  not  infrequently  very  considerable;  at 
times,  indeed,  so  considerable  that  the  chances  of  sewage 
contamination  hardly  call  for  notice.” 

Again  he  says:  “Every  skilled  observer  whose  investiga¬ 
tions  have  gone  to  show  that  certain  oysters  have  served  as 
the  medium  for  conveying  disease  to  man,  has  admitted  that 
the  risk  is  by  no  means  a  great  one;  several  speak  of  such 
occurrences  as  distinctly  rare;  and  certain  observations 
which  have  been  recently  made  have  afforded  further  data  in 
explanation  of  this  comparative  rarity.” 

Your  Commission  has  been  advised  by  an  acknowledged 
authority  on  all  that  relates  to  the  biology  of  the  oyster  that 
a  discharge  of  the  sewage  of  the  city,  as  here  contemplated, 
would  be  beneficial  rather  than  injurious  to  the  oysters  them¬ 
selves. 

We  must  here  note,  however,  that  the  same  authority  calls 
our  attention  strongly  to  the  possibility  that  some  noxious 
germs  or  bacteria  derived  from  the  sewage  and  not  yet 
digested  by  the  oyster  may  be  conveyed  with  it  in  the  raw 
state  to  the  human  stomach  and  there  give  rise  to  disease. 

This  is  undoubtedly  possible,  and  the  experience  at  Middle- 
town,  Conn.,  already  referred  to,  is  a  very  notable  case  in 
point.  But  we  are  not  bound  to  take  our  oysters  from  the 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


56 


immediate  wash  of  the  sewage,  even  if  any  are  to  be  found 
about  the  point  of  probable  discharge,  which,  from  the  best 
information  obtainable,  seems  doubtful.  It  may  even  be 
deemed  wise  for  the  City  to  acquire  the  exclusive  right  to  take 
oysters  within  a  certain  defined  range  from  the  outfall,  to 
appropriate  all  so  taken  to  planting  purposes,  and  transfer 
them  to  other  places  where,  in  water  free  from  pollution,  a 
period  of  from  eight  to  twenty  days,  according  to  different 
observers,  suffices  to  purge  the  oysters  of  all  trace  of  the  nox¬ 
ious  bacteria.  As  the  distance  from  the  point  of  outfall  in¬ 
creases,  the  conditions  become  the  same  as  prevail  in  scores, 
we  might  say  in  hundreds,  of  places  without  any  known  dam¬ 
age  having  resulted  therefrom. 

In  the  “  Report  of  the  Oyster  Commission  of  the  State  of 
Maryland,”  made  in  1894,  we  find  a  statement  from  Ingersoll, 
“  Report  on  the  Oyster  Industry  of  the  United  States,”  giving 
the  quantities  of  Chesapeake  oysters  planted  annually  at 
Wellfleet,  Boston,  Salem  and  Newburyport,  Mass.;  at  Ports¬ 
mouth  and  other  cities  of  New  Hampshire;  at  Portland, 
Maine;  in  Buzzard’s  Bay  and  Narragansett  Bay,  at  New 
Haven,  Conn.,  in  New  York  Bay,  and  on  the  west  shore  of 
Delaware  Bay. 

Many  of  these  very  plantings,  to  say  nothing  of  such  nat¬ 
ural  beds  as  exist  in  the  same  localities,  are  exposed  with 
entire  impunity,  so  far  as  known,  to  the  more  or  less  diluted 
sewage  of  the  adjacent  cities.  This  must  be  the  case  at  New- 
buryport  and  Portsmouth,  at  Boston  and  Salem,  and  every¬ 
where  along  the  shores  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  It  must  be 
the  case  in  Narragansett  Bay,  where  all  the  sewage  of  Provi¬ 
dence  and  Fall  River  is  discharged  at  its  head.  The  same 
occurs  in  Long  Island  Sound,  into  which  is  received  all  the 
sewage  of  Bridgeport,  New  Haven,  Springfield,  Norwich,  New 
London  and  scores  of  other  cities  or  towns.  In  New  York 
Bay  and  Raritan  Bay  all  the  oysters  are  taken  from  waters 
into  which  is  poured  the  sewage  of  New  York,  Brooklyn,  Jer¬ 
sey  City,  Hoboken,  Paterson,  Newark  and  innumerable 
smaller  places,  whilst  the  densely  populated  shores  of  Staten 
Island  and  New  Jersey  contribute  their  share,  without  there 
being  entertained  any  idea  of  contamination  and  no  experi¬ 
ence  of  evil. 

The  oysters  of  Delaware  Bay,  a  very  much  smaller  body  of 


FOR  THE'  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


57 


water  than  the  Chesapeake,  are  exposed  to  all  the  damage 
which  can  be  inflicted  by  the  sewage  of  Wilmington,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  Trenton  and  the  cities  and  towns  which  lie  on  the 
banks  of  the  Delaware,  Schuylkill  and  Lehigh  rivers,  and 
yet  we  hear  of  no  disease  caused  thereby. 

And  now  to  come  to  onr  own  waters,  we  already  have  car¬ 
ried  through  our  bay  all  the  sewage  from  the  cities  and  towns 
along  the  Susquehanna  river.  To  this  is  added  through  the 
Patapsco  the  filth  from  our  own  city,  and  through  the  Poto¬ 
mac  the  sewage  outpour  from  Washington,  Cumberland  and 
intermediate  towns.  Annapolis  contributes  something,  and 
smaller  places  along  the  bay  their  share;  whilst  still  lower 
down  we  reach  the  finest  oysters  subjected  to  exposure  from 
the  output  of  Norfolk,  Portsmouth,  Richmond,  etc.,  and  yet 
no  evidence  of  disease  resulting  from  their  use. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  as  the  result  of  general  experience 
that  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  where  the  dispersion  of  the 
sewage  will  take  place  in  an  immense  body  of  water  in  con¬ 
stant  movement  under  the  influence  of  winds,  tides  and  fluvial 
currents,  there  need  be.no  apprehension  of  evil,  either  to  the 
oysters  or  to  those  who  use  them. 

CHEMICAL  PRECIPITATION. 

While  this  method  of  disposal,  Project  B,  has  been  inves¬ 
tigated  and  found  feasible,  though  not  recommended  by  the 
Consulting  Engineers  who  have  reported  and  estimated  its 
cost,  we  may  dismiss  it  from  present  consideration  by  point¬ 
ing  out  that,  though  its  adoption  would,  according  to  the 
table,  p.  49,  save  an  immediate  outlay  of  |918,000  in  the  cost 
of  first  installation,  it  would  be  at  the  price  of  $107,402.11  per 
annum  for  increased  cost  of  operation.  This  sum  at  4  per 
cent,  represents  the  annual  interest  and  sinking  fund  accumu¬ 
lation  on  a  capital  outlay  of  $2,685,000,  or  nearly  three  times 
the  amount  of  first  cost  which  its  adoption  would  save,  so 
that  economy  in  first  cost  presents  no  inducement  for  avail¬ 
ing  of  it,  nor  can  there  be  any  reason  to  resort  to  it  unless 
crude  discharge  into  the  bay  should  prove  to  be  objection¬ 
able. 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


58 


FILTRATION. 

This  method  of  disposal  for  the  sewage  of  Baltimore,  Pro¬ 
ject  0,  has  been  very  fully  considered  and  reported  upon  by 
the  Consulting  Engineers  together  with  estimates  of  cost. 

The  method  is  an  ideal  one,  and  the  farm  lands  in  Anne 
Arundel  County  on  which  outfall  would  be  made  are  pecu¬ 
liarly  well  adapted  for  such  treatment,  the  soil  being  sandy, 
porous  and  naturally  well  underdrained.  The  soil  and  crops 
would  have  the  benefit  of  the  mannrial  value  of  the  sewage, 
whilst  the  means  of  irrigation,  always  at  hand,  would  insure 
returns  to  the  farmer,  even  in  seasons  of  greatest  drought. 
The  effluent  water  after  having  done  duty  on  the  farms  or, 
when  not  required  there,  after  passing  through  the  reserved 
filter  beds,  would  drain  into  the  Patapsco  or,  in  the  more 
distant  future,  into  the  Magothy,  as  clear  and  limpid  as  when 
drawn  from  the  pipes  of  our  water  supply. 

The  farms  after  being  brought  under  treatment  would  be 
leased,  as  is  the  case  in  Paris,  to  farmers  and  market  gard¬ 
eners  at  rentals  increasing  as  the  beneficial  effects  of  sewage 
irrigation  became  manifest  and  more  widely  known.  A  por¬ 
tion  would  probably  always  be  operated  and  farmed  by  the 
City  in  advance  of  outside  demand  and  could  be  worked  by 
the  labor  of  the  City’s  pauper  establishment,  which  would  in 
all  probability  be  eventually  located  there. 

Although  it  might  be  difficult  to  insure  as  effective  an 
administration  as  exists  under  the  military  discipline  which 
prevails  on  the  Berlin  farms,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that, 
properly  managed,  it  could  be  made  a  model  establishment, 
and  perhaps  a  finer  exemplar  of  the  system  than  any  now  in 
existence. 

This  is  the  system,  Project  C,  recommended  for  adoption 
by  the  Consulting  Engineers. 

A  serious  drawback  to  the  adoption  of  this  scheme  is  its 
much  greater  relative  cost,  both  for  its  establishment  and 
subsequent  working.  To  reach  the  outfall  fields  involves  the 
crossing,  or  piercing  by  one  or  more  tunnels,  of  an  intervening 
ridge,  which  attains  an  altitude  above  mean  tide  of  about  155 
feet,  and  requires  the  pumping  of  about  two-thirds  of  all  the 
sewage  against  a  head  of  128  feet.  The  remaining  third 
would  reach  the  outfall  by  gravity. 


FOR  THE'  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


59 


As  Project  D,  making  use  temporarily  of  chemical  precipita¬ 
tion,  has  value  only  as  an  expedient  for  postponing  for  a  time 
the  larger  expenditures  of  Project  C,  it  need  not  he  discussed 
here  further  than  to  recognize  its  availability,  though  not 
perhaps  its  expediency,  should  Project  O  be  deemed  the  best 
plan  for  adoption. 


DISTRICT  AND  LATERAL  SEWERS. 

RETICULATION  SYSTEM. 

Before  making  further  comparison  of  the  projects  submit¬ 
ted,  it  .is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  tabu¬ 
lated  estimates  made  by  the  Consulting  Engineers  are  only 
for  the  cost  of  intercepting  and  disposing  of  the  sewage. 
They  mention  this  on  p.  196  of  their  report,  and  state  their 
reasons  for  having  made  no  attempt  to  include  designs  and 
estimates  of  cost  for  the  local  or  district  sewers.  Your  Com¬ 
mission  recognizes  the  propriety  of  their  conclusion.  The 
work  of  laying  out  such  local,  district  and  lateral  sewers  is  a 
very  simple  matter  in  competent  hands ;  but  it  cannot  be  done 
intelligently  until  it  be  first  known  where  the  sewage  is  to  go. 
To  have  laid  out  all  the  lateral  sewers  on  their  proper  lines 
to  serve  each  of  the  projects  considered  would  have  greatly 
and  unnecessarily  increased  the  cost  of  the  work  of  your  Com¬ 
mission.  In  fact,  as  the  streets  in  the  annexed  district  have 
not  yet  been  laid  out  and  their  grades  fixed,  it  would  be  simply 
impossible  at  the  present  time  to  determine  upon  the  laterals 
to  serve  that  district.  Nevertheless  the  laterals,  which  may 
be  termed  the  reticulation  system,  must  be  well  under  way 
before  any  sewage  will  reach  the  disposal  system,  and  as  Bal¬ 
timore,  unlike  most  other  cities  with  which  its  plans  will  be 
compared,  has  no  such  reticulation  already  in  existence,  it 
must  be  constructed  simultaneously  with  the  disposal  and 
outfall  system.  It  will  be  under  charge  of  the  same  officers, 
and  will  have  to  be  paid  for  at  the  same  time.  It  is  therefore 
in  the  case  before  us  an  integral  part  of  the  system,  and  its 
estimated  cost  must  be  included  at  the  outstart  in  the  cost 
of  the  works  as  a  whole. 

The  Commission  has  therefore  caused  to  be  made  an  esti¬ 
mate  of  the  cost  of  such  reticulation.  It  is  at  best  but 


GO 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


roughly  approximate,  but  is  believed  to  be  large  euough  to 
cover  the  probable  cost.  This  is  found  to  be,  for  the  first  in¬ 
stallation  with  connections  for  the  service  of  say  330,000  per¬ 
sons,  $2,032,500.  Ultimately,  when  extended  throughout  the 
entire  city,  and  serving  a  population  of  one  million,  its  cost 
will  probably  reach  $5,280,000. 

One  or  other  of  these  sums  is  therefore  to  be  added  to  each 
of  the  estimates  of  the  Consulting  Engineers  in  order  to  learn 
the  actual  amount  of  money  to  be  expended  on  the  work. 

BELATIVE  COST  OF  THE  SEYEBAL  SCHEMES. 

Of  the  four  projects  A,  B,  C  and  D,  we  have  C,  the  filtration 
system,  recommended  by  the  Consulting  Engineers  as  the 
best,  irrespective  of  cost.  It  is  the  best  because  with  it  the 
character  of  the  effluent  is  always  under  control,  so  long  as 
the  quantity  of  land  available  for  its  purposes  is  only  limited 
by  the  demand  of  perfect  filtration,  whilst  in  addition  and 
incidental  thereto  is  the  application  of  the  sewage  to  the  irri¬ 
gation  and  fertilization  of  the  land. 

Your  Commission  recognizes  all  this,  and  is  satisfied  that 
all  the  land  necessary  for  filtering  the  sewage  of  a  larger 
population  than  Baltimore  is  likely  to  attain,  may  be  had  on 
reasonable  terms  in  Anne  Arundel  County;  yet  it  cannot  dis¬ 
regard  the  matter  of  cost. 

If  another  project  will  accomplish  the  purpose  thoroughly 
well  from  a  practical  point  of  view,  and  at  less  cost,  there  can 
be  no  warrant  for  increasing  the  burthen  of  our  already 
heavily  charged  tax-payers  in  order  that  the  system  adopted 
shall  be  not  only  efficient  but  one  of  ideal  perfection. 

We  have  shown,  p.  57,  that  Project  B  presents  no  induce¬ 
ment  for  its  particular  consideration  unless  Project  A  is 
found  to  be  unavailable.  Project  D  also  needs  no  discussion 
except  as  a  temporary  modification  of  Project  C.  We  will 
therefore  confine  our  immediate  attention  to  the  relative 
merits  of  Projects  A  and  C. 

COST  OF  PBOJEOTS  A  AND  G  COMP  ABED. 

The  following  table  shows  the  outlay  of  capital  required 
to  construct  each  of  these  schemes;  also  the  difference  in  their 
cost: 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


61 


Comparison  op  Capital  Outlay  for  Construction  of 
Systems  of  Sewage  Disposal  by  Project  A  into 
Chesapeake  Bay,  and  by  Project  C  on  land  tn  Anne 
Arundel  County. 


a.  First  installation. 
330,000  in  connection. 

b.  Completed  works. 
1,000,000  in  connection. 

A. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

A. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

Estimate  of  Consulting  Engin¬ 
eers  for  intercepting  and 
disposal  of  sewage . 

$3,880,167 

$5,741,007 

$5,129,167 

$12,171,803 

Estimate  of  Commission  for 
Reticulation  System . 

2,032,500 

2,032,500 

5,280,000 

5,280,000 

Cost  of  first  installation  of 
Filtration — Project  C . 

Cost  of  first  installation  of 
Dilution  Project  A . 

Cost  of  completed  works  of 
Filtration — Project  C . 

$7,773,507 

$17,451,803 

Cost  of  completed  works  of 
Dilution — Project  A . 

10,409,167 

Difference  of  first  cost  in  favor 
of  Dilution — Project  A  a. . 

Difference  of  final  cost  in  favor 
of  Dilution — Project  A  b. . 

$1,860,840 

$7,042,636 

It  is  seen  that  at  the  first  installation  of  the  works  $1,860,- 
840  more  will  have  been  expended  upon  the  Anne  Arundel  Co. 
works,  Project  C,  than  required  for  the  Chesapeake  Bay 
works,  Project  A;  and  that  at  their  completion  the  Anne 
Arundel  Co.  works,  Project  C,  will  have  cost  more  by  $7,042,- 
636  than  required  for  completion  of  those  under  the  Chesa¬ 
peake  Bay  delivery  scheme,  Project  A. 

It  is  well  here  to  state  that,  through  incorrect  information 
supplied  to  the  Consulting  Engineers,  the  value  of  the  1,800 
acres,  required  for  the  first  installation  of  the  filtration  plant, 
Project  C,  has  been  underestimated.  These,  being  the  lands 
first  required  for  use,  are  nearest  to  the  city  and  are  much 
more  valuable  than  those  required  for  the  future  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  system. 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


62 


Your  Commission,  after  having  had  these  lands  examined 
by  an  expert,  is  satisfied  that  their  value  is  probably  double 
that  of  the  estimate.  The  cost  of  the  first  installation  of 
Project  C  should  therefore  be  increased  by  $94,200.  No  such 
increase  is  necessary  in  the  estimate  for  the  fully  completed 
works  of  Project  C,  as  the  average  price  allowed  for  the  whole 
5,384  acres  is  deemed  ample. 

With  this  correction  the  difference  in  cost  of  first  installa¬ 
tion  becomes  $1,955,040  in  favor  of  Project  A  instead  of  $1,- 
860,840  as  shown  by  the  preceding  table.  For  the  full  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  works  the  difference  in  favor  of  Project  A 
remains,  as  by  the  table,  $7,042,636. 


Comparison  of  Annual  Cost  of  Maintenance  and  Opera¬ 
tion  of  Systems  of  Sewage  Disposal  by  Project  A 
into  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  by  Project  C  on  land  in 
Anne  Arundel  County. 


a.  First  installation. 
330,000  population 
in  connection. 

b.  Completed  works. 
1,000,000  population 
in  connection. 

A. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

A. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

Annual  Cost 

Annual  Cost 

Annual  Cost 

Annual  Cost 

Maintenance  and  operation  as 
per  estimate  of  Engineers’ 
Report . 

$16,215.55 

$86,760.25 

$29,463.55 

$237,510.00 

Depreciation  and  renewals  as 
per  estimate  of  Engineers’ 
Report . 

42,276.36 

90,319.40 

55,826.36 

200,029.62 

Depreciation  and  maintenance 
of  reticulation  system,  not 
estimated  by  Consulting- 
Engineers  . 

20,325.00 

20,325.00 

52,800.00 

52,800.00 

Annual  interest  on  capital  cost 
of  works,  together  with 
annual  payment  to  sinking 
fund  to  extinguish  cost  in 
50  years — money  at  3}-£  per 
cent . 

155,206.68 

229,640.28 

205,166.68 

486,872.12 

Total  annual  cost  of  operating. 
(Carried  forward) . 

$234,023.59 

$427,044.93 

$343,256.59 

$977,211.74 

FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


63 


Comparison  of  Annual  Cost  of  Maintenance,  etc. — Coni. 


PROJECT. 


a.  First  installation. 
330,000  population 
in  connection. 


b.  Completed  works. 
1,000,000  population 
in  connection. 


(Brought  forward) 


A. 

Dilution. 


Annual  Cost 
$234,023.59 


C. 

Filtration. 


Annual  Cost 
$427,044.93 


A. 

Dilution. 


Annual  Cost 
$343,256.59 


C. 

Filtration. 


Annual  Cost 
$977,211.74 


Interest  on  cost  of  land  and 
other  charges  here  included, 
assumed  in  Report  of  Engin¬ 
eers  to  be  met  by  sales  of 
crops  and  therefore  here 
deducted  . 


968.00 


11,368.00 


Annual  cost  to  the  taxpayers 
of  first  installation  of  Pro¬ 
ject  C . 

Annual  cost  to  the  taxpayers 
of  first  installation  of  Pro¬ 
ject  A . 


$423,076.93 

234,023.59 


Annual  cost  to  the  taxpayers 
on  final  completion  of  Pro¬ 
ject  C . 


$965,843. 


74 


Annual  cost  to  the  taxpayers 
on  final  completion  of  Pro¬ 
ject  A . 


343,256.59 


Annual  saving  to  taxpayers  by 
adoption  of  Project  A,  rather 
than  Project  C,  at  first 
installation . 


$189,053. 


Annual  saving  to  taxpayers  by 
adoption  of  Project  A,  rather 
than  Project  C,  at  final  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  works . 


$622,587.15 


The  above  table  shows  the  animal  cost  of  the  two  Projects 
A  and  O,  and  their  relative  economy.  It  is  not  thought 
necessary  to  correct  the  item  of  interest  on  capital  outlay 
for  first  installation  of  Project  O,  as  the  difference  due  to 
the  deficient  estimate  of  cost  of  land,  before  referred  to,  is 
relatively  very  small. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  adoption  of  Project  A 
will  result  in  an  annual  saving  to  the  taxpayers  of  $189,053.34 
when  the  system  is  first  set  to  work,  and  of  $622,587.15  annu¬ 
ally  when  completed  for  one  million  population,  as  compared 
with  the  estimated  annual  charges  for  Project  O,  serving  the 
same  number  of  people. 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


04 


To  make  these  differences  more  clearly  manifest,  the  cost 
of  the  several  projects  for  which  the  Consulting  Engineers 
have  estimated  are  presented  in  graphic  form  on  Plate  IV. 

It  would  seem  from  the  relative  cost  of  Projects  A  and  C 
that,  of  the  two,  A  should  be  selected  as  the  one  most  advan¬ 
tageous  to  the  interests  of  Baltimore;  provided  its  disposal 
of  the  sewage  is  in  every  way  applicable,  and  without  offense, 
as  the  Consulting  Engineers  tell  us  in  their  report  (page  198) 
is  the  case  with  any  of  the  methods  considered  by  them. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  CURRENTS  OF  THE  CHES¬ 
APEAKE  BAY  OFF  NORTH  POINT. 

Whilst  entertaining  no  doubt  of  the  entire  sufficiency  of 
the  waters  of  the  bay  to  effect  the  full  and  rapid  dilution  of 
the  sewage,  it  has  seemed  proper  to  the  Commission  before 
recommending  the  dilution  project  to  secure  all  information 
obtainable  bearing  on  the  subject.  With  this  view  a  con¬ 
sultation  was  had  with  Major  N.  H.  Hutton,  Engineer  of  the 
Harbor  Board,  whose  twenty  years  or  more  of  continuous 
service  in  connection  with  the  river  and  harbor  has  brought 
him  a  large  experience. 

This  conference  confirmed  the  information  in  possession  of 
the  Commission,  that  for  many  years  no  current  observations 
had  been  made  near  the  point  of  proposed  sewage  outfall. 
The  general  action  of  the  tides  and  currents  was  known  and 
their  relation  to  the  maintenance  of  the  ship  channel  well 
understood,  but  not  so  the  drift  of  the  currents  with  reference 
to  the  adjacent  shore,  and  the  result  of  the  consultation  de¬ 
termined  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  wise,  before  making 
recommendations,  to  ascertain  by  an  investigation  of  the 
local  currents  their  probable  action  upon  the  distribution  of 
the  sewage. 

That  this  examination  should  not  have  already  been  called 
for  by  the  Consulting  Engineers  is  probably  due  to  the  fact 
that  they  were  disposed  to  save  the  city  a  somewhat  tedious 
and  costly  series  of  observations,  unnecessary  and  avoidable 
in  view  of  the  entirely  different  system  of  disposal  which 
they  were  prepared  to  recommend. 

When,  however,  the  Commission  found  the  much  less  costly 
dilution  project  pressing  upon  its  attention,  it  deemed  itself 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


65 


fully  warranted  in  suspending  its  conclusions  and,  undeterred 
by  the  expense,  quite  justified  in  undertaking  such  an  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  currents  into  which  the  sewage  would  be  dis¬ 
charged  as  would  give  a  full  assurance  of  the  effects  to  be 
realized. 

With  this  object  it  was  determined  by  the  Commission  to 
obtain,  if  possible,  the  aid  and  advice  of  General  Wm.  P. 
Craighill,  U.  S.  A.,  (retired),  who  was  for  so  many  years  the 
officer  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A.,  in  charge  of  the 
improvement  of  the  channels  of  the  bay  and  river  approaches 
to  Baltimore. 

It  was  felt  that  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  this  engi¬ 
neer,  in  regard  to  the  currents  and  regimen  of  the  portion  of 
the  bay  affecting  the  questions  before  the  Commission,  would 
not  only  enable  it  to  arrive  more  readily  at  positive  results 
in  regard  to  the  sufficiency  of  these  currents  for  the  complete 
dilution  and  dispersion  of  the  sewage;  but  it  was  also  felt 
that  his  conclusions  in  this  regard,  whatever  they  might  be, 
would  carry  great  weight  with  our  fellow-citizens,  to  whom 
his  distinguished  professional  ability  is  so  well  known  and  by 
whom  it  has  always  been  so  highly  regarded. 

To  the  application  made  to  him  for  his  services,  General 
Craighill  replied  that  he  would  do  his  best  for  the  interest  of 
Baltimore  in  this  case,  as  he  had  in  previous  ones. 

After  consultation  with  General  Craighill  it  was  concluded 
*  that  the  Commission  would  defer  making  current  observa¬ 
tions  until  the  result  of  certain  work  of  a  similar  character 
just  then  being  undertaken  by  the  U.  S.  Coast  and  Geodetic 
Survey  might  be  learned. 

By  the  courtesy  of  General  W.  W.  Duffield,  Superintendent 
of  the  U.  S.  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey,  Lieut.  E.  H.  Tillman, 
U.  S.  Navy,  commanding  Coast  Survey  Schooner  “  Matchless,” 
then  engaged  in  hydrographic  work  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  was 
authorized  to  furnish  for  the  use  of  this  Commission  such 
notes  and  data  obtained  by  him  as  might  prove  of  service  to 
the  work  we  had  in  hand,  and  to  the  cordial  co-operation  of 
this  officer  the  Commission  is  indebted  for  some  interesting 
and  valuable  observations. 

A  study  of  these  developed  the  existence  of  currents  about 
the  proposed  point  of  discharge  of  the  sewage  under  Project  A 
less  favorable  than  had  been  anticipated,  and,  in  Lieut.  Till- 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


GG 


man’s  view,  as  in  our  own,  seemed  to  indicate  that  a  point  two 
miles  northeast  of  such  proposed  poiut  of  discharge,  whilst  not 
more  distant  from  the  shore,  which  trends  in  the  same  gen¬ 
eral  direction,  was  likely  to  he  in  every  way  more  satisfactory, 
as  placing  the  discharge  so  much  further  to  the  east  would 
tend  to  insure  its  passing  down  with  the  ebb  tide  to  the 
eastward  of  the  shoal  lying  immediately  east  of  the  Front 
Range  Light  of  the  Craighill  Channel,  and  would  expose  it 
less  to  the  flood  tide,  which  makes  up  strongly  along  the 
North  Point  shore. 

As  Lieut.  Tillman’s  duties  were  about  to  take  him  to  an¬ 
other  part  of  the  bay,  the  Commission  determined  in  consulta¬ 
tion  with  General  Craighill  to  undertake  for  itself  a  series 
of  float  observations  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  cur¬ 
rents  at  and  about  this  suggested  point  of  discharge. 

A  suitable  schooner,  the  “Ella  Worden,”  of  some  thirty- 
five  tons,  with  cabin  accommodations  for  the  observers,  was 
accordingly  chartered,  and  reported  for  duty  on  May  25tli, 
1897. 

Taking  on  board  the  observers  with  the  necessary  stores  and 
a  supply  of  floats,  she  dropped  down  the  same  day  to  an 
anchorage  about  one  mile  to  the  eastward  of  the  Rear  Range 
Light  of  the  Craighill  Channel. 

Here  she  was  joined  by  the  steam  launch  “Inspector,”  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  city’s  Quarantine  Service.  With  this  equip¬ 
ment,  observations  were  commenced  and  continued  for  up¬ 
wards  of  four  weeks.  The  first  work  was  the  establishment 
of  a  number  of  points  or  stations  on  a  line  nearly  due  east 
of  the  Rear  Range  Light  of  the  Craighill  Channel.  These 
were  marked  by  poles  driven  into  the  muddy  bottom  at  dis¬ 
tances  from  the  Rear  Range  Light  of  about  1  mile  for  station 
A;  1^  miles  for  station  B;  2  miles  for  station  C;  2J  miles  for 
station  K;  3  miles  for  station  E;  and  31  miles  for  station  F. 
Plate  VIII. 

Owing  to  the  general  trend  of  the  shore  to  the  northeast, 
the  distances  from  the  shore  of  the  more  distant  stations  C, 
K,  E  and  F  were  only  from  1-J  miles  to  2^  miles. 

The  method  adopted  at  the  outset  was,  after  establishing 
a  tide-gauge  at  the  Rear  Range  Light  of  the  Craighill  Chan¬ 
nel,  to  set  adrift  at  an  early  hour  every  morning  a  series  of 
numbered  floats  from  the  several  established  points,  the 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


67 

changing  positions  of  which  under  the  influence  of  the  tides 
and  currents  were  duly  noted. 

This  method  was  subsequently  modified  by  starting  floats 
hourly,  and  in  some  instances  half-hourly,  from  one  and  the 
same  point,  marked  K  on  the  plan. 

This  point  was  selected  in  preference  to  others  east  or  west 
of  it  as  probably  best  suited  for  the  discharge  of  the  sewage, 
because,  with  deeper  water  and  distance  from  shore  about 
the  same  as  in  the  case  estimated  on  by  the  Consulting  Engi¬ 
neers  (Project  A),  although  with  a  lengthening  of  the  land 
conduit  about  1J  miles,  an  amount  of  easting  was  attained 
which  would  bring  the  outfall  where,  under  the  action  of  the 
flood  tide,  none  of  the  output  is  likely  to  reach  the  shore 
without  undergoing  great  dilution,  and  where,  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  ebb,  the  tendency  will  be  to  carry  the  discharge 
to  the  eastward  of  the  Front  Range  Light  of  the  Craighill 
Channel,  thus  exposing  it  less  to  the  action  of  the  succeeding 
flood,  which  our  observations  show  makes  strongly  to  the 
westward. 

The  floats  were  sticks  of  yellow  pine  two  inches  square 
in  section  and  from  seven  feet  to  eight  and  a  half  feet  in 
length,  loaded  with  cast  iron  washers  secured  by  a  wire 
passing  through  a  hole  drilled  near  the  end  of  the  stick  so  as 
to  float  vertically.  They  were  designated  by  colored  flags 
twelve  inches  square  consecutively  numbered  and  mounted 
on  light  iron  rods  inserted  into  the  axis  of  the  stick  at  its 
upper  end. 

After  starting  the  floats  the  observer  and  his  assistant 
followed  them  on  the  steam  launch,  observing  their  drift, 
locating  with  a  sextant  their  positions  from  time  to  time, 
with  reference  to  fixed  landmarks  and  duly  recording  the 
observations. 

The  notes  thus  taken  were  returned  to  the  office  and,  being 
there  plotted  on  a  chart  of  the  bay,  have  served  to  indicate 
the  influences  to  which  the  sewage  would  be  exposed  if  dis¬ 
charged  at  the  starting  points  of  the  several  floats,  and  of  the 
extent  of  the  diffusion  of  the  sewage  in  a  given  time. 

The  inability  of  the  launch  “  Inspector  ”  to  keep  at  sea  in 
much  of  the  weather  experienced  during  the  period  of  our 
observations  made  it  often  impossible  to  follow  the  floats  in 
their  very  divergent  drift  under  the  varying  conditions  of  the 


08 


RE  PORI’  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


tide,  and  thus  many  of  them  were  lost  to  observation,  even 
before  they  passed  south  of  the  line  X — Y  as  shown  on  the 
chart  (Plates  VIII  and  IX),  beyond  which  there  was  no  possi¬ 
bility  of  following  them  with  the  facilities  available.  Thai 
some  few  observations  are  recorded  and  plotted  south  of  this 
line  is  due  partly  to  the  valuable  assistance  of  Lieut.  Tillman, 
U.  S.  X.,  who  kindly  took  note  of  such  floats  as  passed  within 
range  of  his  vessel,  and  to  observations  occasionally  made 
from  the  Harbor  Board’s  tug  “  Baltimore,”  which  was  fre¬ 
quently  loaned  to  the  service  of  your  Commission  for  trips  of 
inspection  during  the  continuance  of  the  work. 

The  floats  lost  to  observation  by  inability  to  follow  them  on 
one  day  or  by  reason  of  nightfall  interfering,  were  always 
sought  and  sometimes  recovered  on  the  following  day,  or 
were  later  discovered  grounded  on  the  shoals.  Those  not 
found  are  believed  to  have  passed  below  the  line  X— Y,  and 
to  have  passed  down  with  the  general  current  of  the  ebb  tides. 

Whilst  the  float  observations  are  less  complete  and  there¬ 
fore  less  satisfactory  than  might  have  been  the  case  had  all 
the  requirements  been  known  in  advance;  had  the  craft  em¬ 
ployed  been  better  able  to  cope  with  the  prevailing  weather 
conditions  of  the  bay,  and  had  the  observers  been  sufficiently 
numerous  to  follow  the  floats  throughout  their  entire  course, 
say  as  far  as  Sandy  Point,  yet  enough  has  been  developed  to 
indicate  fairly  well  the  action  of  the  tidal  currents  and  their 
probable  effect  on  the  sewage  discharge,  together  with  the 
amount  of  dilution  that  may  be  safely  relied  upon  even  before 
the  diluted  sewage  on  its  way  to  the  sea  passes  the  line  which 
limited  the  observations. 

Plates  VIII  and  IX  present  upon  a  chart  of  the  bay  a  trace 
of  the  course  of  all  floats  set  out  from  the  several  stations, 
with  the  last  observed  position  of  each. 

From  a  study  of  these  it  has  been  found  possible  to  con¬ 
struct  diagrams  which  afford  indication  of  the  degree  of  dilu¬ 
tion  which  the  sewage  will  sustain. 

Plate  X  shows  two  groupings  of  floats  set  out  from  sta¬ 
tion  K. 

The  first  shows  the  position  of  such  of  21  floats,  set  out 
between  8.00  A.  M.  and  2.30  P.  M.  of  June  25th,  as  could  be 
found  within  the  range  of  observation  at  about  3  P.  M.  of  the 
same  day.  A  contour  connects  all  the  positions  observed  at 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


C>9 


approximately  the  same  time,  say  twelve  hours  from  output 
of  first  float. 

The  second  grouping  shows  in  a  similar  way  the  position 
of  such  of  the  same  21  floats  and  of  nine  others  following 
them  in  continued  sequence  as  could  be  found  within  the 
range  of  observation  at  about  noon  of  the  following  day — say 
33  hours  from  output  of  first  float.  A  contour  connects  all 
the  positions  so  observed  in  the  latter  group,  as  in  the  first. 

As  in  the  latter  grouping,  observations  near  the  point  of 
discharge  are  deficient  by  reason  of  the  limited  corps  of  ob¬ 
servers  being  fully  occupied  elsewhere,  the  contour  including 
simultaneous  observations  has  been  closed  by  taking  in  the 
point  of  output,  station  K,  on  the  assumption  that  sewage  is 
pouring  out  there  continuously,  and  whilst  probably  diffused 
in  all  directions  from  that  point,  may  certainly  be  included 
within  the  lines  closing  the  contour. 

As  some  particles  of  sewage  may  be  supposed  to  reach 
every  exterior  point  at  which  a  float  is  observed,  it  is  assumed 
that  during  the  time  occupied  in  reaching  such  point  some 
particles  will  be  diffused  through  the  water  at  every  inter¬ 
mediate  point,  and  that  consequently  the  area  included 
wdthin  the  closed  contour  will  contain  at  every  point  some 
portion  of  the  sewage  put  out  within  the  time  elapsed  be¬ 
tween  the  starting  of  the  first  float  of  the  series  and  the  time 
of  approximately  simultaneous  observation. 

The  inference  follows  that  the  sewage  discharged  in  the 
given  time  may  be  considered  as  dispersed  or  diffused  through 
a  volume  of  water  at  least  as  great  as  that  included  within 
the  contour. 

The  two  marginal  diagrams  on  the  same  plate  serve  to 
show  graphically  the  degree  of  dilution  believed  to  be  demon¬ 
strated  as  the  result  of  these  observations. 

In  the  diagram  A  the  larger  circle  represents  the  superfi¬ 
cial  area  of  the  body  of  water  16  feet  in  depth  into  which  has 
been  dispersed  or  diffused  the  twelve  hours  flow  of  sewage, 
the  superficial  area  of  which  with  same  depth  is  represented 
by  the  smallest  circle,  and  indicates  a  ratio  of  191  parts  of 
fresh  water  to  1  part  of  sewage. 

In  the  diagram  B  we  have  similar  relations  for  thirty-three 
hours  flow  of  sewage  extending  over  an  area  averaging  about 
20  feet  in  depth,  indicating  a  ratio  of  333  parts  of  fresh  water 
to  1  part  of  sewage. 


70 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


In  botli  diagrams  the  intermediate  circle  represents  the 
superficial  area  of  the  body  of  fresh  water,  also  of  same  depth, 
deemed  by  Messrs.  Hering  and  Gray  necessary  for  adequate 
dilution,  as  stated  by  them  in  their  report  (page  146). 

The  prevailing  currents  have  already  proved  themselves 
quite  sufficient  to  keep  open  the  main  ship  channel  to  and 
from  Baltimore,  and  are  deemed  fully  adequate  to  carrying 
the  relatively  small  volume  of  sewage. 

The  influence  of  the  greater  current  of  the  other  side  of  the 
bay  is  felt  in  the  channel  as  Sandy  Point  is  approached, 
where,  at  a  distance  of  about  15  miles  from  the  point  of  out¬ 
fall,  the  full  effect  is  had  of  the  whole  discharge  from  the 
head  of  the  bay,  with  the  full  volume  of  the  Susquehanna 
river. 

That  a  very  moderate  current,  however,  will  effect  all  the 
dilution  required  may  be  inferred,  when  it  is  noted  that  by 
the  time  the  city  attains  a  population  of  one  million  the  flow 
of  sewage  at  the  outfall  will  be  but  231  cubic  feet  per  second, 
whilst  the  ordinary  dry  weather  flow  of  the  Susquehanna 
alone,  as  cited  by  Messrs.  Hering  and  Gray,  is  20,000  cubic 
feet  per  second,  or  35,000  cubic  feet  per  second  as  cited  by 
General  Craighill  from  gaugings  by  the  IT.  S.  officials,  with 
one  or  two  freshets  per  year  to  wash  out  any  possible  deposits 
made  beneath  a  depth  of  16  to  20  feet  of  water. 

Such  currents  can  fully  dispose  of  all  of  the  sewage  Balti¬ 
more  may  discharge,  now  or  hereafter,  and  can  carry  down 
everything  held  in  suspension. 

The  report  of  General  Craighill,  which  will  be  found  as 
Appendix  D  to  this  Report,  completely  confirms  the  opinion 
of  your  Commission  as  to  the  adequacy  of  the  currents  of  the 
Bay  to  effect  a  satisfactory  disposal  of  the  sewage,  and  leaves 
open  only  the  question  of  the  particular  point  at  which  it 
may  be  expedient  to  discharge  it. 

CONSIDERATION  OF  DILUTION  PROJECT,  A,  AS 
MODIFIED  BY  RESULTS  OF  THE  STUDY 
OF  THE  CURRENTS  OF  THE  BAY 
OFF  NORTH  POINT. 

The  discharge  of  the  sewage  at  the  point  K,  Plate  II,  which 
has  been  discussed,  involves  some  modification  of  the  esti- 


FOR  THE’  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


71 


mates  for  Project  A  as  presented  by  the  Consulting  Engi¬ 
neers. 

The  line  of  the  main  outfall  sewer,  instead  of  reaching  the 
shore  of  the  Bay  just  north  of  Shallow  Creek,  say  about  a  mile 
and  three-fourths  north  of  North  Point,  must,  by  a  change  of 
location,  be  extended  across  a  narrow  inlet  to  the  shore  of 
Hart  Island,  an  additional  distance  of  about  6,300  feet, 
whence  the  outfall  point  at  Station  K  is  reached  by  sub¬ 
merged  conduits  of  about  11,000  feet  in  length. 

The  latter  conduits  will  be  some  1,400  feet  shorter  than 
estimated  for  under  Project  A.  This  reduction  in  length 
being  due  to  the  fact  that  a  depth  of  18  feet,  thought  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  full  discharge,  is  reached  at  Station  K  in  a 
shorter  distance  from  the  shore  than  by  the  line  for  Project  A 
off  North  Point. 

The  additional  length  of  6,300  feet  of  main  outfall  sewer 
will  cost,  at  the  price  estimated  by  the  Consulting  Engineers, 
|189,000.  Of  this  length  some  4,000  feet  will  skirt  so  near 
the  shore  as  probably  to  require  protection  by  rip-rap.  For 
this  an  allowance  of  $10.00  per  foot  is  made,  or  $40,000  in  all, 
making  the  total  additional  cost  of  the  main  outfall  sewer 
$229,000  to  be  added  to  the  cost  of  the  first  installation  as 
estimated  by  the  Consulting  Engineers,  thus  bringing  this 
cost  to  $4,109,167. 

The  Consulting  Engineers  provided  that  the  limited 
amount  of  sewage  at  first  installation  should  be  discharged 
at  a  distance  of  but  one  mile  from  shore.  As  in  the  revised 
location  deeper  water  and  improved  currents  are  found  in  the 
same  distance  from  shore,  no  change  is  made  in  the  length 
of  the  submerged  conduit  for  the  first  installation. 

For  the  completed  works  Station  K,  the  point  selected  for 
ultimate  discharge,  is  reached  in  a  distance  1,400  feet  less 
than  to  the  discharge  point  estimated  for  off  North  Point. 
The  cost  of  the  double  submerged  conduit  is  estimated  by 
the  Consulting  Engineers  at  $120.00  per  foot,  so  that  the  cost 
of  the  submerged  line  is  reduced  by  the  sum  of  $168,000,  leav¬ 
ing  the  net  increased  cost  of  the  revised  line  when  completed 
but  $61,000  more  than  estimated  by  the  Consulting  Engineers, 
or  say  $5,190,167. 

This  revised  line  will  hereafter  be  referred  to  as  Project  K. 

To  maintain  through  the  lengthened  brick  outfall  sewer 


72 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


of  Project  K  the  same  velocity  of  flow  as  provided  for  in  the 
outfall  sewer  of  Project  A  will  involve  a  loss  of  head  when 
the  shore  of  Hart  Island  is  reached  of  2.2  feet;  whilst  to 
maintain  in  the  shortened  submerged  conduit  the  same 
velocity  of  flow  as  provided  for  in  the  conduit  of  Project  A 
requires  0.35  feet  less  head  than  in  that  case;  so  that  we 
have  a  net  loss  of  head  of  1.85  feet. 

To  adjust  this  will  require  a  revision  of  the  profiles  when 
a  definitive  location  is  made,  and  may  involve  the  lifting  of  the 
low  level  sewage  through  a  correspondingly  increased  height, 
an  adjustment  requiring  no  further  consideration  here. 

COMPARISON  OF  THE  COST  OF  PROJECTS  K  AND  C. 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  as  concisely  as  possible  the 
relative  cost  of  the  two  methods  of  disposal  under  considera¬ 
tion,  the  cost  of  the  collection  or  reticulation  system,  which 
is  practically  the  same  in  either  case,  and  not  involved  in  the 
question  now  before  us,  is  separated  in  the  following  tables. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


73 


Comparison  of  Capital  Outlay  for  Construction  of 
Sewage  Disposal  Plant  by  Filtration  (Project  C) 
and  Dilution  (Project  K). 


(a).  First  installation. 
330,000  population 
in  connection. 

(b).  Completed  Works. 
1,000,000  population 
in  connection. 

K. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

K. 

Dilution. 

C. 

Filtration. 

Estimate  of  Consulting  Engin¬ 
eers  for  interception  and 
disposal  of  sewage  per  Pro¬ 
ject  A. . 

$3,880,167 

$5,741,007 

$5,129,167 

$12,171,803 

Add  for  deficiency  in  valuation 
of  Glen  Burnie  lands . 

94,200 

Additional  cost  of  lengthened 
line  of  Project  K . 

229,000 

61,000 

Add  for  right  of  way  not 
hitherto  estimated . 

25,000 

5,000 

25,000 

25,000 

Cost  of  first  installation  of 
Filtration,  Project  C . 

$5,840,207 

Cost  of  first  installation  of 
Dilution,  Project  K . 

4,134,167 

Cost  of  completed  works,  Fil¬ 
tration,  Project  C . 

$12,196,803 

Cost  of  completed  works,  Dilu¬ 
tion,  Project  K . 

Saving  of  cost  at  first  installa¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  Dilution, 
Project  K . 

5,215,167 

$1,706,040 

Saving  of  final  cost  in  favor 
of  Dilution,  Project  K.  ... 

$6,981,636 

Bringing  down  the  cost  of  the 
several  stages  under  each 
project,  and  adding  the  cost 
of  the  Reticulation  system 
at  each  stage . 

$4,134,167 

2,032,500 

$5,840,207 

2,032,500 

$5,215,167 

5,280,000 

$12,196,803 

5,280,000 

Total  estimated  cost  of  the 
respective  systems  at  each 
stage  . 

$6,166,667 

$7,872,707 

$10,495,167 

$17,476,803 

Comparison  of  Annual  Cost  to  Taxpayers  for  Interest, 
Sinking  Fund,  Maintenance  and  Operation  of  the 
Works  under  Projects  0  and  K  respectively. 


(a). 


First  Installation. 


(b).  Completed  Works. 


Dilution. 


Filtration. 


Dilution. 


Filtration. 


Maintenance  and  operation  as 
per  estimate  of  Engineers’ 
Report . 

Add  for  care  of  lengthened 
line  and  additional  pumping, 
1  man,  and  4 <f0  additional  on 
coal  and  oil  for  additional 
pumping . 

Depreciation  and  renewals  as 
per  estimate  of  Engineers’ 
Report . 

Depreciation  and  renewals  on 
additional  cost,  1  <f0  on  $229,- 
000.00  and  1  <f0  on  $61,000  .  . 

Annual  interest  and  sinking 
fund  charge  on  capital  cost 
of  works  to  extinguish  cost 
in  50  years,  money  at 

Add  interest  and  sinking  fund 
charge  on  right  of  way, 
$25,000.00  and  $5,000  . 

And  on  additional  cost  of  out¬ 
fall  sewer,  $229,000.00 . 

Deduct  interest  on  cost  of 
lands  and  appurtenances  as¬ 
sumed  by  Engineers’  Report 
as  paid  by  sale  of  crops.  . .  . 

Annual  cost  to  taxpayers  on 
first  installation  of  Project  C 

Annual  cost  to  taxpayers  on 
first  installation  of  Project  K 

Annual  saving  to  taxpayers  at 
first  installation  by  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  Project  K  in  prefer¬ 
ence  to  Project  C . 


$16,215.55 

814.80 

42,276.36 

2,290.00 

155,20B.  68 

1,000.00 

9,160.00 


$86,760.25 

90,319.40 

229,640.28 

200.00 

$406,919.93 

3,968.00 

$402,951.93 

226,963.39 

$175,988.54 


$29,463.55 

1,165.20 

55,826.36 

610.00 

205,166.68 

1,000.00 

9,160.00 


$237,510.00 

200,029.62 

486,872.12 

1,000.00 

$925,411.74 

11,368.00 


Annual  cost  to  taxpayers  on 
final  completion  of  Project 
C . 

Annual  cost  to  taxpayers  on 
final  completion  of  Project 
K . 

Annual  saving  to  taxpayers  by 
the  adoption  of  Project  K, 
rather  than  Project  C,  at 
final  completion  of  works.  . 


$914,043.74 


302,391.79 


$611,651.95 


Bringing  down  the  annual  cost 
of  the  respective  projects  of 
each  stage,  and  adding  the 
cost  of  maintenance  of  the 
reticulation  system,  we  have 
as  the  total  cost  of  the  re¬ 
spective  projects  at  each 
stage  . 


$226,963.39 

20,325.00 


$247,288.39 


$402,951.93 

20,325.00 


$423,276.93 


$302,391.79 

52,800.00 

$355,191.79 


$914,043.74 

52,800.00 


15966,843. 74 


74 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


75 

It  will  tlius  be  seen  that,  whilst  Dilution  Project  K  will 
cost  at  completion  f 5, 215, 167,  the  other,  or  Filtration  Project 
0,  will  cost  |12,196,803  or  two  and  one-third  times  as  much. 

And  further,  that  the  annual  cost  of  operating  Dilution 
Project  K,  including  interest  and  sinking  fund,  will  be  $302,- 
391,  whilst  that  of  Filtration  Project  0  is  $914,013,  or  three 
times  as  much. 

The  annual  saving  of  $611,652  effected  by  adopting  the 
Dilution  Project  K  will  amount  in  nine  years  after  completion 
to  more  than  the  entire  cost  of  the  dilution  plant;  whilst  at 
the  end  of  twenty  years  such  saving,  could  it  be  realized, 
would  aggregate  more  than  the  entire  cost  of  Filtration  Pro¬ 
ject  C,  as  estimated  by  the  Consulting  Engineers. 


EFFECT  OF  A  DISCHARGE  OF  THE  SEWAGE  INTO 
THE  WATERS  OF  THE  BAY  UNDER 

PROJECT  K. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  there  are  no  shores  on 
which  the  sewage  is  likely  to  impinge  and  but  little  possibility 
of  its  being  noticeable  at  any  considerable  distance  from  the 
point  of  outfall.  It  must  be  remembered  that  sewage  is  not 
garbage.  The  latter  consisting  of  tin  cans,  pea  hulls,  corn 
cobs,  etc.,  would  probably,  if  discharged  into  the  bay,  float 
upon  the  surface  and  create  a  nuisance  for  a  considerable 
distance,  no  doubt  drifting  to  the  shores.  No  such  material 
forms  any  part  of  the  sewage  which  would  be  conveyed  in 
the  conduits  of  your  system.  Besides,  the  whole  of  the  sew¬ 
age  would  receive  from  two  to  three  screenings  through 
openings  not  exceeding  one  or  one  and  a  half  inches  in  width, 
so  that  the  matter  carried  in  suspension  will  be  very  much 
comminuted  before  reaching  the  outfall,  where  its  appear¬ 
ance  will  not  differ  greatly  from  that  of  dirty  wash  water. 

We  have,  too,  already  noted  as  the  result  of  enquiry  that, 
not  only  are  no  merchantable  oysters  now  taken  at  or  near 
the  point  of  projected  outfall,  but  that  none  such  have  been 
taken  in  that  locality  in  recent  years. 

It  has  also  been  ascertained  that  such  oysters  as  do  grow 
there  are  of  inferior  size,  mostly  “  culls,”  and  cannot  be  made 
use  of  unless,  by  transplanting,  they  may  serve  as  seed  or 
plants  elsewhere.  At  present  no  such  use  is  made  of  them. 


7C> 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Should  their  use  for  such  purpose  become  desirable  hereafter, 
we  have  seen  by  the  observations  and  conclusions  of  Prof. 
H'erdman,  already  referred  to,  that  the  deposit  of  the  oysters 
in  water  free  from  pollution  gradually  removes  all  trace  of 
bacteria.  So  far  as  your  Commission  has  been  able  to  learn, 
no  observer  has  found  trace  of  the  typhoid  bacillus  in  the 
oyster  21  days  after  exposure. 

If  these  statements  made  to  your  Commission  or  developed 
by  their  investigation  of  recorded  observations  elsewhere  be 
facts,  as  your  Commission  believes  them  to  be,  it  would  ap¬ 
pear  that  no  offense  can  be  caused  and  no  existing  commer¬ 
cial  interest  can  be  affected  injuriously  by  a  discharge  of  the 
sewage  at  the  point  indicated  under  Project  K.  And  should 
it  be  found  expedient  to  obtain  legislation,  granting  to  the 
City  of  Baltimore  the  exclusive  right  to  take  oysters  within 
a  certain  defined  range  surrounding  the  sewage  outfall,  the 
city  will  have  under  its  own  control  all  questions  in  regard 
to  the  effect  of  such  discharge  on  neighboring  oysters,  should 
the  future  develop  the  existence  of  any  such  beds. 

COMPARISON  OF  PROJECTS  K  AND  C  FOR  BALTI¬ 
MORE  WITH  THE  SYSTEMS  OF  SOME 
OTHER  CITIES. 

In  order  that  opportunity  may  be  afforded  for  observing 
the  relative  conditions  which  obtain  in  several  cities  whose 
new  and  improved  sewerage  systems  it  may  be  desired  to 
compare  with  those  suggested  for  Baltimore,  Plate  Y  has 
been  prepared. 

This  shows  graphically  for  the  cities  of  Paris,  Berlin,  Mel¬ 
bourne  and  Boston,  as  well  as  for  our  own  city,  the  popula¬ 
tion,  volume  of  sewage  output  per  day,  pumpage  per  day,  and 
lastly,  the  landed  area  in  use  or  required  by  those  of  the 
cities  named  by  which  the  filtration  or  irrigation  processes 
are  used  or  proposed. 

By  diagram  2  of  Plate  Y  it  will  be  seen  that  Baltimore, 
with  its  forecast  population  of  one  million,  has  to  provide 
for  a  daily  volume  of  sewage,  without  storm  water,  43  per 
cent,  greater  than  that  of  Melbourne,  also  with  no  storm 
water  and  the  same  population ;  27  per  cent,  greater  than  that 
of  Paris  with  a  limited  amount  of  storm  water  and  a  popula- 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


77 


tion  of  2J  millions ;  233  per  cent,  greater  than  that  of  Berlin, 
with  limited  storm  water  and  a  population  of  2  millions ;  and 
34  per  cent,  greater  than  that  of  Boston,  with  limited  storm 
water,  whilst  exceeding  the  forecast  population  of  the  latter 
city  by  but  25  per  cent. 

Diagram  3  of  the  same  plate  shows  the  amount  of  daily 
pumpage  required  in  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  the  several 
cities,  and  includes  for  Baltimore  both  Projects  K  and  0. 
Here  it  will  be  observed  that  the  Baltimore  Filtration  Project 
0  will  involve  an  amount  of  pumping  only  about  11  per  cent, 
less  than  that  of  Paris,  when  the  latter  is  developed  for  its 
24  millions  of  population. 

The  same  diagram  illustrates  one  of  the  principal  sources 
of  economy  in  the  proposed  Dilution  Project  K;  the  only 
pumping  required  being  less  than  9  per  cent,  of  that  shown 
for  Project  C. 

It  serves  also  to  show  the  economy  in  this  respect  of  Pro¬ 
ject  K  for  Baltimore  compared  with  the  same  feature  of  the 
Boston  system.  The  pumpage  for  Baltimore  with  forecast 
population  of  one  million  being  only  25  per  cent,  of  that  of 
Boston,  with  forecast  of  800,000  population. 

Diagram  4  of  Plate  Y  shows  the  relative  amount  of  filtra¬ 
tion  area  or  farm  lands  required  or  estimated  for  the  several 
cities  using  or  proposing  filtration  methods. 

Here  we  see  illustrated  the  estimated  efficiency  of  the  Anne 
Arundel  soil  for  filtration  purposes,  which  will  enable  5,400 
acres  there  to  dispose  of  150  million  gallons  of  sewage  per 
day,  whilst  at  Melbourne  8,900  acres  are  thought  necessary 
for  105  million  gallons.  The  acquisition  of  22,200  acres 
shown  for  Berlin  is  probably  largely  in  advance  of  its  imme¬ 
diate  needs,  more  especially  as  the  population  of  that  city 
uses  but  28  gallons  of  water  per  head  per  day,  where  the  citi¬ 
zens  of  Baltimore  now  use  or  waste  from  87  gallons  to  100 
gallons  daily.  It  would  seem  either  that  the  filtering  power 
of  the  soil  of  the  Berlin  farms  is  much  inferior  to  that  ex¬ 
pected  of  the  Anne  Arundel  sands,  or  the  land  has  been 
secured  from  economic  reasons  long  in  advance  of  necessity 
therefor. 

Comparison  with  Paris  indicates  a  much  larger  acreage 
per  million  of  gallons  daily  delivered  than  has  been  thought 
necessary  for  filtration  of  the  Baltimore  sewage.  Perhaps 
the  excess  of  land  provided  for  both  Paris  and  Berlin  is  due 


TS 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


to  the  larger  acreage  devoted  to  broad  irrigation  in  the 
schemes  for  those  cities,  whilst  in  Anne  Arundel  county  irri¬ 
gation  of  the  farm  lands  would  be  incidental  and  has  not 
been  deemed  the  main  object. 

In  Plate  VI  is  presented  graphically  the  relative  cost  of 
Projects  C  and  K  compared  with  that  of  works  in  the  other 
cities  already  cited. 

Fig.  1  shows  the  capital  cost.  The  horizontal  black  line 
divides  the  cost  of  the  disposal  system,  shown  above  the  line, 
from  the  collection,  or  as  we  have  termed  it,  the  reticula - 
1  ion  system,  below  the  line. 

Fig.  2  shows  in  the  same  manner  the  annual  cost  of  main¬ 
tenance  and  operation. 

The  columns  colored  in  full  show  the  cost  for  the  several 
cities  at  last  advices,  and  for  Baltimore  when  progressed  to 
the  point  of  serving  330,000  population.  Extensions  of  the 
columns  in  outline  indicate  the  further  cost  of  maintaining 
the  projected  works,  and  in  the  case  of  Baltimore  when  the 
works  are  serving  one  million  of  people,  and  indefinitely 
thereafter.  To  the  Baltimore  columns  have  been  added 
hatched  sections  representing  the  annual  charges  for  interest 
and  sinking  fund  on  cost  of  the  works,  which  will  continue 
for  say  50  years  or  until  the  debt  incurred  for  the  works  has 
been  paid  off  by  the  operation  of  the  sinking  fund.  These 
items  have  not  been  obtainable  for  the  other  cities,  except 
Berlin,  for  which  the  amount  is  given  as  upwards  of  one 
million  dollars  annually. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

The  Sewerage  Commission  having  carefully  considered  the 
whole  subject,  having  duly  weighed  the  recommendations  of 
its  expert  advisers  and  at  the  same  time  kept  in  mind  its 
duty  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  now  presents 
to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  and,  through  them,  to  its  fel¬ 
low-citizens,  its  conclusions  and  recommendations. 

It  deems  it  of  paramount  necessity  that  storm  water  and 
domestic  sewage  should  be  collected  separately  and  sepa¬ 
rately  disposed  of. 

That  subsoil  drainage  should  also,  as  far  as  possible,  be 
separated  and  disposed  of  with  the  storm  water. 

That  the  storm  water  should  pass  by  way  of  the  existing 
storm-water  drains  and  natural  watercourses  to  the  river  and 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


79 


harbor  as  now.  From  these  and  their  future  extensions 
should  be  excluded,  as  soon  as  the  development  of  the  system 
now  recommended  makes  this  possible,  all  domestic  sewage 
and  foul  matter  except  street  washings. 

That  the  domestic  sewage  should  be  collected  by  a  system 
of  high  level  and  low  level  intercepting  sewers  on  lines  sub¬ 
stantially  as  laid  down  on  the  plans  and  profiles  shown  on 
Plates  III  and  A,  and  disposed  of  by  a  continuous  discharge 
into  Chesapeake  Bay  at  a  point  approximately  located  at  K 
on  the  chart,  Plate  II,  being  some  two  and  a  half  miles  about 
due  east  of  the  Bear  Bange  Light  of  the  Craighill  Channel. 
The  high  level  intercepting  sewer,  serving  about  three-fourths 
of  the  forecast  population  of  the  city,  will  reach  this  point  by 
gravity.  The  low  level  intercepting  sewer  will  collect  at  a 
point  on  the  left  or  east  bank  of  Jones’  Falls  opposite  Water 
street  all  the  drainage  from  the  outlying  low  grounds  of  Fell’s 
Point,  Oldtown,  Locust  Point,  Ferry  Point,  and  such  portions 
of  the  more  central  portion  of  the  city  as  lie  below  the  level 
of  the  gravity  flow,  and  from  a  single  pumping  station  there 
located  will  lift  and  force  the  low  level  sewage,  about  one- 
fourth  of  the  whole,  into  the  gravity  sewer  at  a  point  near 
the  intersection  of  Broadway  and  Lombard  streets,  whence 
all  will  flow  together  by  gravity  to  the  outfall  in  the  bay. 

The  reasons  which  have  controlled  the  Commission  in  ar¬ 
riving  at  the  conclusion  that  this,  method  of  disposal  is  the 
best  for  the  City  of  Baltimore  have  been  already  discussed  in 
detail.  They  may,  however,  be  briefly  summarized  here. 

There  are  three  possible  methods  of  disposal. 

First.  By  dilution  into  the  waters  of  the  bay. 

Second.  By  chemical  precipitation  of  the  solids  and  dis¬ 
posal  of  the  effluent  into  the  river  or  bay. 

Third.  By  filtration  upon  lands  in  Anne  Arundel  county. 

The  second  is  eliminated  as  offering  no  advantages  when 
either  the  first  or  third  can  be  made  to  serve  efficiently  the 
desired  end,  unless  indeed  as  a  temporary  expedient  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  ultimate  adoption  of  the  third. 

The  third  method,  being  the  one  recommended  by  Messrs. 
Gray  and  Hering,  is  both  theoretically  and  practically  the 
best  method  of  disposal.  It  returns  to  the  earth  the  organic 
matter  originally  derived  from  it  and  leaves  the  watery  por¬ 
tion  of  the  sewage  remaining  after  irrigation  of  the  soil  and 
crops  to  pass  off  in  a  state  bordering  closely  on  purity. 


80 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Better  soil  for  use  with  this  method  than  that  of  Anne 
Arundel  county  is  rarely  found,  and  there  could  be  no  hesita¬ 
tion  in  accepting  it  as  the  method  best  adapted  to  our  needs 
were  it  not  that  its  first  cost  at  completion  is  not  only  more 
than  double  that  of  the  first  method,  but  the  annual  cost  of 
working  it  is  about  three  times  as  much  as  the  other. 

This  consideration  of  excessive  cost  has  had  much  weight 
with  the  Commission,  and  whilst  it  could  not  have  led  it  to 
recommend  an  inefficient  project  under  any  circumstances,  it 
has  induced  a  particularly  careful  examination  of  all  the  ar¬ 
guments  likely  to  be  presented  against  the  method  now 
recommended. 

These  enquiries  and  investigations  have  satisfied  your  Com¬ 
mission  that  the  adoption  of  the  system  by  which  the  sewage 
will  be  discharged  into  the  bay  will  cause  no  injury,  present 
or  prospective,  either  to  the  people  who  dwell  along  the 
shores  of  the  bay  or  to  the  important  commercial  interests  in 
which  Baltimore  itself  has  so  large  a  stake,  and  the  Com¬ 
mission  realizing  its  responsibility  deems  itself  fully  war¬ 
ranted  in  the  conclusions  at  which  it  has  arrived. 

Messrs.  Gray  and  Hering,  our  Consulting  Engineers,  each 
recognize  and  state  that  the  waters  of  the  bay  are  quite  ade¬ 
quate  for  the  purpose  of  effective  dilution,  although  they 
recommend  a  different  disposal  as  the  best;  whilst  General 
Craighill,  who  has  also  been  consulted,  with  his  special  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  tides  and  currents  of  the  bay,  has  expressed  his 
conviction  of  their  adequacy  to  effect  the  entire  removal  of 
the  sewage  without  offense  to  any. 

There  would  certainly  appear  to  be  but  little  reason  why 
the  City  of  Baltimore  should  deny  itself  the  facilities  and 
advantages  which  nature  has  vouchsafed  to  it  and  at  great 
expense  seek  another  method  of  disposal  lest  pollution  should 
be  added  to  the  waters  of  the  bay,  when,  do  what  it  may,  the 
cities  and  towns  along  the  shores  of  the  bay  and  the  great 
rivers  which  empty  into  it  will  continue  to  make  use  of  it  as 
they  do  now,  emptying  their  sewage  and  other  wastes  at  will. 
Ships  will  come  and  ships  will  go.  They  will  drop  all  sorts 
of  matter  directly  over  and  upon  the  oyster  beds.  It  would 
be  ridiculous  to  attempt  to  prevent  it.  May  not  Baltimore  as 
well,  without  offense  to  others,  modestly  purify  herself  in  the 
broad  waters  of  this  great  bay  without  thereby  disturbing  or 
annoying  any  existing  interest?  Your  Commission  thinks 
she  may. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


81 


The  complete  system  of  sewerage  here  recommended  with 
disposal  by  dilution  in  the  waters  of  Chesapeake  Bay  at  the 
point  indicated  may  be  effected  by  the  expenditure  of  a  sum, 
which  it  is  estimated  will  reach  the  amount  of  f 6,166,667,  by 
the  time  the  outfall  works  are  completed  and  the  reticula¬ 
tion  system  of  laterals  sufficiently  extended  to  serve,  say, 
330,000  persons,  a  sum  which  will  be  increased  from  year  to 
year  as  the  laterals  of  the  reticulation  system  are  extended 
and  more  of  the  population  brought  into  connection  with  it, 
until,  when  the  whole  city  area  is  connected  with  the  system, 
say  by  the  year  1925,  the  cost  will  reach  the  estimated  total 
of  f 10, 495, 167 ;  these  sums  being  respectively  f 1,706, 040  and 
$6,981,636  less  than  the  cost  at  similar  stages  of  jirogress 
of  the  filtration  method  of  disposal  upon  the  lands  of  Anne 
Arundel  county. 

Whilst  this  economy  of  first  cost  is  found  in  the  disposal 
of  the  sewage  into  the  Chesapeake,  the  saving  of  annual  ex¬ 
pense  for  interest,  sinking  fund  and  maintenance  is  no  less 
marked  in  favor  of  such  disposal.  From  the  time  the  works 
are  completed  until  the  debt  incurred  for  construction  is 
paid  off,  the  Chesapeake  disposal  will  cost  per  annum  but 
about  one-third  of  the  annual  cost  of  the  filtration  method, 
and  when  the  debt  is  paid  the  annual  cost  of  the  Chesapeake 
disposal  becomes  less  than  one-third  of  the  other. 


METHOD  OF  MEETING  THE  COST  OF  THE  SYSTEM 

BECOMMENDED. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  taxation  has  in  the  past  borne 
heavily  on  the  citizens  of  Baltimore,  it  is  deemed  well  to  dis¬ 
cuss  here  the  additional  burthen  which  will  be  caused  by 
undertaking  the  sewerage  works  now  under  consideration. 

If  the  recommendations  of  the  Commission  be  adopted  by 
the  city,  an  expenditure  estimated  at  $6,166,667  must  be 
made  before  the  new  system  can  be  opened  to  use  in  a  par¬ 
tially  completed  state,  and  with  a  portion  of  the  population 
connected  therewith,  or  say  330,000.  So  much  of  the  work 
might  perhaps  be  accomplished  in  three  years  from  date  of 
closing  the  contracts  for  construction;  but  it  is  much  more 
likely  that  five  years  will  be  consumed  in  effecting  it.  If  so, 
the  average  yearly  expenditure  will  be  $1,233,000.  As  the 
work  will  of  course  be  paid  for  by  the  proceeds  of  a  loan  to 


82 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


be  authorized  and  effected  for  the  purpose,  there  must  be 
raised  by  taxation  the  sum  of  $49,300  to  meet  the  interest  and 
sinking  fund  payments  for  the  first  year’s  outlay.  This  will 
increase  from  year  to  year  as  the  work  progresses  until  at  the 
end  of  five  years  (lie  works  are  opened  for  use. 

Of  the  amount  thus  far  expended,  $2,032,500  will  have  been 
spent  in  constructing  the  district  mains  and  laterals  of  the 
reticulation  system.  The  cost  of  these  it  is  usual  in  other 
cities  to  assess  directly  against  the  real  estate  benefited,  on 
the  same  principle,  or  rather  for  the  same  reason,  that  gov¬ 
erns  the  assessment  of  cost  for  opening  streets. 

Should  the  same  method  obtain  here,  the  city  treasury  will 
be  recouped  by  the  end  of  the  five  years,  or  shortly  thereafter, 
in  the  sum  of  $2,032,500,  advanced  for  this  portion  of  the 
construction  from  the  funds  of  the  loan,  and  the  sum  so  re¬ 
covered  will  be,  according  to  estimate,  sufficient  to  carry  for¬ 
ward  to  completion  the  main  works;  whilst  the  extension  of 
the  reticulation  system  will  be  paid  for  by  assessment  for 
benefits  as  before. 

From  the  time  the  works  are  first  opened  to  service,  the 
current  annual  charges  may  be  most  readily  met  by  an  annual 
sewer  rate,  charged  against  the  property  enjoying  the  benefit 
of  sewer  connection,  on  a  basis  similar  to  that  which  obtains 
in  the  City’s  Water  Department. 

Deference  to  the  table  on  page  74  shows  that  the  total 
annual  charges  at  first  installation  will  be  $247,288.39. 

The  last  report  of  the  Water  Department  shows  a  total  of 
92,779  houses  and  warehouses  yielding  revenue  for  the  use  of 
water  at  rates  per  house  varying  from  $3.00  up  to  $10.00. 

Assuming  that  the  number  of  houses  supplied  with  water 
includes  a  small  proportion  outside  the  city  limits,  the  popu¬ 
lation  served  is  probably  not  less  than  520,000.  If  so,  the 
population  of  330,000  connected  with  the  sewers  at  the  out- 
start  may,  at  the  same  ratio,  be  attributed  to  58,879  houses. 

Now  a  sewer  tax  averaging  $4.20  per  annum  for  each  one 
of  these  58,879  houses  will  yield  $247,291,  a  trifle  more  than 
is  required  to  meet  the  annual  charges  for  running  and  keep- 
iug  up  the  works,  paying  the  interest  on  their  cost  and,  by 
proper  payment  to  the  sinking  fund,  extinguishing  in  fifty 
years  the  debt  incurred  for  their  original  cost. 

Although  an  average  charge  of  but  $4.20  per  house  is  so 
small  that  it  will  be  a  burthen  to  none,  it  may  be  well  to 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


83 


show  the  large  offset  there  still  remains  in  the  saving  to 
property  owners  of  the  cost  now  incurred  for  cleaning  cess¬ 
pools. 

The  reports  of  the  Health  Department  for  the  last  three 
years  show  an  average  of  92,568  loads  of  filth  removed  from 
cesspools  cleaned  each  year.  An  enquiry  made  by  your  Com¬ 
mission  into  the  methods  of  doing  this  work  has  satisfied  it 
that  the  reports  do  not  show  all  the  stuff  removed.  It  has 
been  stated  that  little  or  none  from  the  21st  and  22d  wmrds 
reaches  the  dumps,  whence  the  tally  is  reported  to  the  Health 
Department,  and  that  an  addition  of  10  per  cent,  to  the 
amount  reported  to  and  by  the  Department  would  not  more 
than  cover  the  quantity  diverted  in  violation  of  law  from 
the  proper  dumping  places. 

Nevertheless,  neglecting  any  correction  of  the  total  number 
of  loads  of  stuff  reported  as  removed,  we  find  the  92,568  loads 
reported  as  taken  away  each  year  is  just  about  one  load  for 
each  house  of  about  92,779  houses  and  warehouses  in  the 
city.  Now  the  charge  made  for  privy  cleaning  is  $2.50  for 
each  load  removed,  so  that  whilst  some  pay  more  and  others 
less,  and  some  escape  altogether,  yet  on  an  average  each 
house  owner  pays  $2.50  each  year  for  this  process. 

This  of  course  will  be  saved  when  sewer  connection  is 
effected,  so  that  the  average  annual  cost  to  the  average  house 
owner  will  be  but  $1.70  more  for  the  efficient  service  of  the 
new  system,  than  is  now  paid  annually  under  our  existing 
method. 

This  showing  is  based  upon  present  conditions  and  upon 
the  assumed  population  of  330,000  that  will  be  connected  with 
the  sewers  when  they  are  first  opened  for  use. 

As  the  works  are  extended  the  house  connections  will  in¬ 
crease,  so  that  when  the  population  reaches  one  million  con¬ 
nected  with  the  sewers,  taking  the  same  ratio  of  houses  to 
population  as  at  present,  there  will  probably  be  as  many  as 
178,000  houses  from  which  to  collect  the  revenue  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  works,  interest  and  sinking  fund,  the 
total  of  which  is  estimated  for  that  period  at  $355,191.79  (see 
table,  page  74). 

This  will  be  more  than  met  bv  an  average  house  rate  of 

$2.00. 

When,  after  the  lapse  of  50  years,  the  cost  of  the  works 
has  been  paid  off  through  the  operation  of  the  sinking  fund, 


84 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


an  average  house  rate  of  one  dollar  will  more  than  suffice  to 
meet  the  estimated  cost  of  maintenance. 

The  construction  of  this  system  of  improved  sewerage  will 
leave  the  existing  sewers  or  drains  no  other  functions  to 
perform  than  the  carrying  off  of  storm  water  and  street 
washings. 

The  latter,  unless  intercepted  by  proper  catch-basins,  will 
still  reach  these  drains  as  now  and  will  be  carried  along  with 
the  storm  water  through  them  to  the  Basin,  to  Jones’  Falls, 
or  directly  to  the  river,  from  which  they  will  be  removed  by 
periodic  dredging  as  at  present.  All  domestic  sewage,  how¬ 
ever,  including  water-closet  drainage,  will  be  cut  off  and  inter¬ 
cepted  by  the  new  system.  The  flooding  of  sidewalks  and 
street  crossings  with  bath  and  laundry  water  in  the  winter 
season  when  the  gutters  are  obstructed  by  ice  will  no  longer 
be  characteristic  of  our  city. 

It  may  be  safely  anticipated  that,  with  the  removal  of  the 
large  quantity  of  organic  matter  which  is  now  discharged 
into  them,  the  offensiveness  of  the  Basin  and  the  Harbor 
generally,  now  so  serious  a  cause  of  complaint,  will  entirely 
disappear. 

The  emptying  and  cleansing  of  all  existing  cesspits, 
promptly  followed  by  the  filling  of  the  empty  pits  with  clean 
material,  will  surely  produce  in  our  city,  as  it  has  invariably 
done  elsewhere,  an  improvement  in  the  general  health  of  the 
city  and  a  marked  reduction  in  the  death  rate. 

The  subsoil  drainage  of  the  low  grounds  of  the  city,  which 
it  is  contemplated  will  be  an  important  feature  of  the  system 
now  recommended,  should  improve  the  health  of  the  localities 
so  drained,  and  should,  according  to  all  experience,  have 
notable  effect  in  lowering  the  death  rate  from  consumption; 
at  the  same  time  it  will  render  available  in  them  for  storage 
and  business  purposes  basements  and  cellars  which  at  present 
are  quite  useless. 

Thus  will  be  enhanced  the  value  of  property  in  sections  of 
the  city  which  have  suffered  by  reason  of  the  difficulty  of 
introducing  improvements  now  generally  regarded  as  essen¬ 
tial. 


EECOMMENDATIONS. 

Should  this  Keport  and  its  conclusions  be  accepted  by  the 
Honorable  the  Mayor  and  City  Council,  it  is  respectfully 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


85 


recommended,  that  this,  or  another  Commission  be  authorized 
with  the  aid  of  the  City  Solicitor,  to  prepare  an  enabling 
act  to  be  submitted  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  at 
its  approaching  session;  so  that  by  the  adoption  of  such  act 
the  city  may  be  enabled  to  commence  the  work  of  construc¬ 
tion  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

Also,  that  without  waiting  for  the  final  ratification  of  such 
enabling  act  a  competent  civil  engineer  be  appointed  as  Chief 
Engineer,  who,  with  the  aid  of  necessary  assistants,  shall  at 
once  proceed  to  make  a  definitive  location  of  the  works  here 
recommended  with  revised  estimates,  so  that  there  need  be 
no  delay  in  letting  the  work,  should  it  be  authorized  by  the 
Legislature  and  the  people. 

Such  careful  revision  will  only  result  in  effecting  economies 
that  cannot  at  this  stage  be  anticipated. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  no  additional  storm-water 

« 

drains  or  so-called  sewers,  nor  extensions  of  any  already 
existing,  be  authorized  without  the  approval  of  such  Chief 
Engineer,  in  order  that  wasteful  and  unnecessary  expendi¬ 
ture  of  public  money  may  in  the  future  be  avoided. 

Inasmuch  as  the  location  of  the  main  gravity  intercepting 
sewer  with  a  continuous  flow  of  sewage  from  the  extreme 
western  section  of  the  city  to  the  outfall  in  the  bay  will 
naturally  admit  of  but  very  slight  deviation  from  the  natural 
gradient  adopted  and  but  slight,  if  any,  change  from  the 
streets  which  such  gradient  will  determine,  it  is  recommended 
that  no  future  subway  work  be  undertaken  by  other  depart¬ 
ments  without  consultation  with  such  Chief  Engineer,  in 
order  that  unnecessary  interference  and  increased  expense 
may  be  avoided. 

The  Commission  would  here  remind  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  that  at  least  twice  before  has  the  City  of  Baltimore 
undertaken  to  investigate  the  sewerage  problem. 

Under  Mayor  Thomas  Swann  a  joint  resolution,  approved 
September  26th,  1859,  appointed  a  Commission  to  investigate 
the  subject.  This  Commission  reported  in  1862,  but  no  action 
seems  to  have  been  taken  thereon. 

Under  Mayor  Ferdinand  C.  Latrobe  a  joint  resolution,  ap¬ 
proved  February  8th,  1881,  authorized  the  appointment  of  a 
civil  engineer  to  examine  and  report  upon  the  question  of 
establishing  a  general  system  of  sewerage  in  the  city. 


86 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Under  this  resolution  Mr.  G.  H.  Latrobe  was  appointed. 
His  report  was  made  to  the  same  council;  but,  although  a 
joint  committee,  to  which  it  was  referred,  seems  to  have 
recommended  the  carrying  out  of  his  plans,  we  have  no  evi¬ 
dence  that  any  steps  in  this  direction  were  ever  taken. 

Now  the  problem  has  again  been  submitted  to  the  members 
of  the  present  Commission,  who  have  had  the  responsibility 
of  disbursing  a  large  amount  of  money  in  the  work  and  who 
have  contributed  assiduously  their  own  time  and  labor  to  its 
investigation  and  determination. 

The  Commissioners  venture  to  hope  that  some  definite 
action  will  be  had  upon  this  Report,  and  if  its  recommenda¬ 
tions  meet  with  approval,  that  steps  will  be  at  once  taken 
towards  the  construction  of  the  works. 

The  Commission  desires  also  to  express  its  thanks  and 
record  its  obligation  to  those  who  have  in  various  ways  aided 
it  with  the  results  of  their  experience  and  observation. 

It  would  particularly  mention  its  indebtedness  for  maps, 
charts,  statistics  and  special  information  to  Brig.  General 
Wm.  P.  Craighill,  U.  S.  A.,  retired,  late  Chief  of  Engineers,  for 
so  many  years  in  charge  of  the  harbor  improvements  of  Bal¬ 
timore,  and  the  approaches  thereto ;  to  Col.  P.  C.  Hains,  Corps 
of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A.,  now  in  charge  of  the  same  works;  to 
Prof.  T.  C.  Mendenhall,  late  Superintendent  of  the  U.  S.  Coast 
and  Geodetic  Survey,  and  to  Gen.  W.  W.  Duffield,  his  succes¬ 
sor  in  that  office;  to  Lieut.  E.  H.  Tillman,  U.  S.  N.;  to  Lieut. 
Edward  Simpson,  IT.  S.  N.,  Hydrographic  Officer  at  Balti¬ 
more,  and  to  Mr.  A.  P.  Davis,  Hydrographer,  TJ.  S.  Geological 
Survey;  to  Mr.  F,  P.  Stearns,  former  Engineer  of  the  State 
Board  of  Health  of  Massachusetts  and  to  Mr.  X.  H.  Good- 
uough,  his  successor  in  that  office;  to  the  chiefs  of  the  several 
departments  of  the  City  administration,  and  especially  to  Dr. 
James  F.  McShane,  Commissioner  of  Health,  to  Major  X.  H. 
Hutton,  Engineer  of  the  Harbor  Board,  and  to  Mr.  C.  H. 
Latrobe,  Engineer  and  Superintendent  of  Parks;  to  Messrs. 
Wm.  T.  Manning,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  George  C.  Wilkins,  General  Agent  of  Pennsylvania 
Railroad,  J.  M.  Hood,  President  of  Western  Maryland  Rail¬ 
road  Company,  Wm.  R.  Hutton  and  to  Prof.  P.  R.  Uliler. 

For  information  in  regard  to  the  oyster  and  the  oyster  beds 
of  the  Chesapeake,  to  Prof.  W.  K.  Brooks,  Gen.  Joseph  B. 
Seth,  Major  Juo.  S.  Gibbs,  and  Mr.  Thos.  F.  Tyler. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


87 


For  meteorological  notes,  to  Prof.  Willis  L.  Moore,  Chief  of 
U.  S.  Weather  Bureau,  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  to  Messrs. 
Geo.  E.  Hunt  and  F.  J.  Walz,  successively  in  charge  of  the 
local  office  at  Baltimore. 

For  courteous  attention  often  received  personally  and  more 
frequently  in  the  way  of  correspondence  or  by  the  transmis¬ 
sion  of  valuable  documents,  your  Commission  desires  to  ex¬ 
press  its  thanks  to : 


Messrs.  Horace  Andrews,  C.  E. 
Henry  J.  Barnes,  M.  1). 
Geo.  H.  Benzenberg,  C.  E. 
Philip  D.  Borden,  C.  E. 

P.  H.  Bryce,  M.  D. 

Win.  M.  Brown,  Jr.,  C.  E. 
J.  F.  Bigelow,  C.  E. 

F.  W.  Cappelen,  C.  E. 

H.  A.  Carson,  C.  E. 

O.  F.  Clapp,  C.  E. 

R.  M.  Clayton,  C.  E. 

B.  H.  Colby,  C.  E. 

L.  E.  Cooley,  C.  E. 

Wm.  E.  Cutshaw,  C.  E. 
Richard  A.  Hale,  C.  E. 
James  H.  Harlow,  C.  E. 

B.  M.  Harrod,  C.  E. 

E.  M.  Hastings,  C.  E. 

Allen  Hazen,  C.  E. 

J.  W.  Hill,  C.  E. 

Marsden  Munson,  0.  E, 

D.  E.  McComb,  C.  E. 

C.  H.  Myers,  C.  E. 

J.  H.  Shedd,  C.  E. 


Jos.  P.  Davis,  C.  E. 
Harrison  P.  Eddy,  C.  E. 
Frederic  Emory. 

James  Francis,  C.  E. 
Julian  Griggs,  C.  E. 

E.  B.  Guthrie,  C.  E. 

Wm.  Jackson,  C.  E. 

J.  A.  Jowett,  C.  E. 

E.  Kuichling,  C.  E. 

E.  H.  Keating,  C.  E. 

C.  W.  Kelly,  C.  E. 

C.  A.  Lindsley,  M.  D. 
Harvey  Linton,  C.  E. 
Horace  Loomis,  C.  E. 

J.  H.  Pearson,  C.  E. 
Andrew  Rosewater,  C.  E. 
C.  H.  Rust,  C.  E. 

F.  H.  Snow,  C.  E. 

F.  J.  Schnauber,  C.  E, 
Harry  Turner. 

Geo.  S.  Webster,  C.  E. 
Geo.  L.  Wilson,  C.  E. 


Geo.  Y.  Wisner,  C,  E. 
Henry  D.  Woods,  C.  E. 


Also,  for  valuable  information  and  documents,  to  the  fol¬ 
lowing  foreign  correspondents: 

Messrs.  Alex.  R.  Binnie,  Chf.  Eng.  London  Co.  Council,  England. 

J.  Corbett,  Salford,  England. 

R.  8.  Dugdale,  Huddersfield,  England. 

Thos.  L.  Ellwood,  Manchester,  England. 

Norfleet  Harris,  U.  S.  Consul,  Leeds,  England. 

Thomas  Hewson,  Leeds,  England. 


88 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Edmund  Jeeves,  Melton-Mowbray,  England. 

Thos.  Melvin,  Glasgow,  Scotland. 

John  Mann,  Adelaide,  Australia. 

E.  G.  FitzGibbon,  Melbourne,  Australia. 

R  J.  Kirk,  U.  S.  Consul,  Copenhagen,  Denmark. 

Andrew  Howatson,  Neuilly-sur-Seine,  France. 

Claude  M.  Thomas,  U.  S.  Consul,  Marseilles,  France. 

James  Hobrecht,  Berlin,  Germany. 

W.  H.  Bindley,  Frankfort,  Germany. 

Daniel  J.  Sanches,  Amsterdam,  Holland. 

In  final  conclusion  your  Commission  desires  to  acknowledge 
the  faithful  and  efficient  service  of  its  several  assistants: 

Mr.  Calvin  Whiteley,  Jr.,  who  lias  had  charge  of  parties  in 
the  field. 

Mr.  P.  C.  Kennedy,  wrho  has  had  similar  charge,  and  who 
also  conducted  the  float  observations  in  Chesapeake  Bay. 

It  desires  especially  to  express  its  sense  of  the  industry 
and  skill  which  has  been  brought  to  its  service  by  Mr.  Ken¬ 
neth  Allen,  its  Principal  Assistant  Engineer,  who  has,  under 
its  direction,  conducted  all  the  surveys  and  observations 
found  necessary  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work,  besides  aiding 
the  Commissioners  with  his  accumulated  knowledge  and  ex¬ 
perience. 

The  Commission  would  also  bear  testimony  to  the  faithful 
work  of  Mr.  C.  L.  Hector,  Clerk  to  the  Commission,  who  has 
kept  its  accounts  and  lias  had  charge  of  its  correspondence 
and  records. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 


MENDES  COHEN, 

F.  H.  HAMBLETON 
E.  L.  BARTLETT. 


Baltimore,  20th  September,  1897. 


APPENDIX  A 


DESCRIPTION  OF  INTERCEPTORS 


PROJECT  K 


DESCRIPTION  OP  INTERCEPTORS— PROJECT  K. 


The  approximate  location  of  the  intercepting  sewers  in  Project  K 
may  be  seen  by  reference  to  Plate  A,  furnished  by  the  Consulting 
Engineers  for  Project  A,  and  their  profiles  are  shown  on  Plate  Ill, 
appended  to  this  Report. 

The  main  or  high-level  interceptor,  which  is  extended  to  the 
eastward  of  the  city  as  the  outfall  sewer,  collects  the  sewage  from 
that  portion  of  the  city  lying  above  or  to  the  north  of  ifc  and 
conveys  it  to  the  outlet  in  Chesapeake  Bay  by  gravity. 

The  entire  sewage  of  the  valley  of  Gwynn’s  Falls  and  Gwynn’s 
Run  lying  to  the  north  will  be  collected  at  the  intersection  of 
Wilkens  avenue  and  Bentalou  street,  from  which  point  the  inter¬ 
ceptor  4  feet  10  inches  in  diameter  is  projected  southeasterly  to  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  R.  R.  right  of  way,  thence  parallel  to  the 
same  to  Calhoun  street,  in  Calhoun  to  Hollins  street,  Hollins  to 
Carey,  to  Lombard  and  under  the  Calhoun  Street  and  Carey 
Street  Drains.  It  is  here  5  feet  8  inches  in  diameter  and  will 
require  a  modification  of  section  to  pass  under  the  drain.  It 
continues  in  Lombard  to  Schroeder,  Pratt,  Scott  and  Lombard 
streets,  and  up  Fremont  avenue  to  German  street.  Here  it 
passes  in  a  siphon  of  two  34  inch  cast  iron  pipes  under  the 
Pine  Street  and  Arch  Street  Drains  near  their  junction  at 
Penn  street,  over  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  R.  R.  tunnel,  which  is 
just  cleared  at  German  and  Howard  streets,  up  the  latter  to 
Fayette  street,  and  eastward  in  that  street.  At  Park  avenue, 
where  it  is  6  feet  6  inches  in  diameter,  the  Liberty  Street  Drain, 
4  feet  6  inches  in  diameter,  will  have  to  be  carried  under  the 
sewer.  Continuing  in  Fayette  street  to  St.  Paul  street,  it  turns 
northerly  into  the  latter,  whence  it  continues  to  Madison  street,  to 
Calvert  street,  to  Eager  street,  to  Guilford  avenue,  thence  northerly 
a  short  distance,  thence  easterly,  7  feet  10  inches  in  diameter,  and 
dropping  by  a  shaft  to 'a  lower  level  it  extends  as  a  siphon  of  two 
42  inch  steel  pipes  under  Jones’  Falls  approximately  200  feet 
north  of  Eager  street.  On  the  eastern  side  of  the  Falls  it  rises 
again  and  runs  south  to  Eager  street,  thence  to  Forrest  street,  to 
Madison  street  and  to  Caroline  street.  At  Eden  street,  where  it 


92 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


is  10  feet  2  inches  in  diameter,  the  Central  Avenue  Drain,  about 
64  feet  in  diameter,  interferes  and  will  require  re-location.  The 
line  continues  southerly  on  Caroline  street  to  Mullikin  street,  to 
Bond  street,  to  Fairmount  Avenue,  to  Bethel  street,  to  Baltimore 
street,  to  Broadway  and  to  Lombard  street. 

Here  it  receives  the  discharge  of  sewage  collected  by  the  low-level 
system  and  pumped  to  this  point  through  iron  mains  and  is 
enlarged  to  a  diameter  of  11  feet  4  inches.  It  then  continues 
easterly  to  Ann  street,  to  Pratt  street,  to  Chapel  street,  to  Gough 
street,  to  Duncan  alley,  to  Bank  street,  to  Patterson  Park  avenue, 
to  Eastern  avenue  and  easterly  on  Eastern  avenue,  diverging  into 
an  embankment  in  the  south  side  of  Patterson  Park,  to  Streeper 
street.  Here  it  turns  to  the  south,  and  in  order  to  cross  Eastern 
avenue  the  grade  of  that  avenue  will  have  to  be  slightly  raised. 

At  Fait  avenue  it  runs  eastward  to  Patuxent  street,  then  to 
Hudson,  to  Potomac,  to  Dillon,  to  Clinton,  to  O’Donnell,  to  High¬ 
land  avenue  and  to  Elliott  street. 

From  this  point  the  line  continues  in  a  general  southeasterly 
direction  to  the  outfall  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  crossing  Bear  Creek  by 
a  siphon  on  the  way. 

This  outfall  sewer  which,  from  near  Harris  Creek,  is  12  feet 
4  inches  in  diameter,  is  designed  to  take  the  maximum  discharge 
from  the  forecast  population  of  one  million  when  running  two- 
thirds  full;  and  its  gradient  will  ensure  a  uniform  velocity  of  about 
4i  feet  per  second.  These  conditions,  with  the  elevation  at  outlet 
for  a  free  discharge  of  the  sewage,  are  elements  which  control  the 
area  of  the  city  which  may  be  served  by  the  high-level  interceptor 
without  pumping. 

The  lower  portions  of  the  city — those  lying  to  the  south  of  the 
above  line,  drain  to  interceptors  which  collect  the  sewage  to  a 
pumping  station  on  the  east  side  of  Jones’  Falls,  a  short  distance 
north  of  Lombard  street,  from  which  it  is  pumped  through  force 
mains  to  the  high-level  interceptor  at  Lombard  street  and 
Broadway. 

The  West  Low-level  Interceptor  runs  northeasterly  from  Putnam 
street  on  Russell,  where  it  may,  if  required,  collect  the  sewage  from 
a  considerable  territory  lying  beyond  the  present  city  limits.  Rus¬ 
sell  street  for  three  or  four  blocks  is  as  yet  but  a  marsh,  and  will 
have  to  be  raised  several  feet.  At  Bush  street,  where  the  inter¬ 
ceptor  is  3  feet  3  inches  in  diameter,  it  passes  in  two  16  inch  iron 
pipes  under  the  Bush  Street  Drain.  It  also  passes  under  the  Allu- 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


93 


vion  Street  Drain  to  Stockholm  street,  to  Leadenhall,  to  Montgom¬ 
ery,  to  Charles,  to  Balderston,  to  Light,  to  Lombard,  to  Calvert,  to 
Water  street,  where  its  diameter  is  6  feet  6  inches,  and  under 
Jones’  Falls  in  two  34  inch  steel  pipes  to  the  pumping  station.  It 
is  so  designed  as  to  provide  a  velocity  of  4  feet  per  second  when 
running  half  full. 

Two  interceptors  from  Locust  Point  will  enter  the  West  Low- 
level  Interceptor,  one  at  Stockholm  and  Leadenhall  streets,  and  one 
at  York  street.  The  former  will  collect  the  sewage  from  the 
greater  part  of  Locust  Point,  and  is  located  on  Clement,  Allen, 
Winder,  Race,  Barney  and  Leadenhall  streets  to  Stockholm.  In 
size  it  varies  from  20  inches  to  4  feet  10  inches  in  diameter.  The 
York  street  interceptor  drains  a  narrow  district  to  the  northeast 
of  a  line  between  Federal  Hill  and  Riverside  Park,  and  is  located 
on  Belt,  Rupert,  Montgomery  and  Covington  streets,  Hughes  and 
Battery  avenues,  and  York  street  to  Charles  street.  It  is  of  15 
inch  and  20  inch  pipe.  The  velocity  in  these  two  intercept-ore  will 
be  three  feet  per  second  when  half  full. 

The  East  Low-level  Interceptor  runs  along  Clover  alley  from 
Canton  street  to  Foster  avenue,  with  a  diameter  of  18  inches,  to 
Luzerne  street,  to  Hudson  street,  to  Boston  street,  to  Aliceanna 
street,  to  Caroline  street,  to  Eastern  avenue,  to  Albemarle  street, 
to  Lombard  street,  and  along  Front  street  to  the  pumping  station, 
where  it  is  36  inches  in  diameter.  Below  Aliceanna  and  Caroline 
streets,  the  velocity  when  half  full  is  four  feet  per  second,  but  above 
this  point  it  is  somewhat  less  in  order  to  keep  under  cover. 


APPENDIX  B 


STORM-WATER  DRAINAGE 


STORM-WATER  DRAINAGE. 


A. — Existing  Drains. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  fair  conception  of  tlie  adequacy  of  the 
existing  drains  to  discharge  the  flow-off  of  their  respective  water¬ 
sheds,  it  has  been  necessary  to  make  certain  assumptions  as  to  the 
intensity  of  rainfall,  the  character  of  the  inner  surface  of  the  drains, 
etc.,  based  upon  which  their  requisite  and  actual  capacities  have 
been  calculated,  with  brief  comments  as  to  the  results.  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that,  these  are  in  all  cases  conclusive,  as  certain 
factors  affecting  the  problems  were  often  unavailable.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  what  extensions  or  interceptors  were  contemplated  in  the 
design?  What  are  the  limits  of  the  intended  drainage  area 
affected  as  it  may  be  to  a  considerable  extent  by  the  arrangement 
of  inlets,  the  altering  and  establishing  of  street  grades?  What  is 
the  character  of  the  inside  surface  as  to  smoothness  and  resist¬ 
ance  to  erosion?  Manifestly,  without  knowledge  on  such  points, 
no  refinement  in  calculation  will  give  exact  results.  But  it  is 
believed  that  the  conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  will  indicate 
in  a  general  way  the  extent  to  which  the  several  drains  are  fitted 
to  perform  their  appointed  work. 

It  has  been  assumed  as  reasonable: 

First.  That  a  rate  of  not  less  than  3-J  inches  of  rainfall  per 
hour  should  be  provided  for,  80  per  cent,  of  which  will  eventually 
flow  directly  to  the  drain.* 

While  the  elements  that  control  the  run-off  from  an  area  of 
ground  are  too  numerous  to  enable  us  to  predict  the  resulting 
storm  discharge  by  means  of  a  formula  with  precision,  yet  for 
general  purposes  the  McMath  form  of  the  Burkli-Ziegler  formula 
is  well  adapted  to  the  conditions  prevailing  in  Baltimore  and  has 
been  used  here  in  estimating  the  storm  water  to  be  cared  for. 

*  It  is  understood  that  many  of  the  drains  are  designed  to  provide  for  a 
maximum  of  two  inches  of  rain  per  hour.  The  percentage  of  flow-off  to  the 
drain  varies  from  about  30  for  rural  districts  to  nearly  100  in  compactly  built 
districts  with  impervious  pavements,  but  for  the  present  purposes  SO  has  been 
assumed  as  generally  applicable  to  the  built-up  areas  in  Baltimore. 


98 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


This  formula  may  be  expressed  as  follows: 

Q=  cr^A'S, 

in  which 

Q  =1  run-off  in  cubic  feet  per  second. 

c  =  a  coefficient  corresponding  to  the  proportion  of  the  rainfall 
that  will  flow  directly  to  the  drain. 
r  —  the  maximum  rate  of  rainfall  in  inches  per  hour  which  will  be 
provided  for. 

A  —  the  drainage  area  in  acres. 

S  —  The  average  fall  per  thousand  in  surface  of  drainage  area. 


Second.  That  in  calculations  for  the  capacity  of  drains  the 
interior  surface  may  be  taken  as  equivalent  to  that  of  good  brick¬ 
work,  and  that  in  older  stone  drains  allowance  may  be  made  for 
their  probable  condition.  These  latter,  however,  are  almost  always 
of  ample  size. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  explain  that  a  channel  with  a  smooth 
interior  will  discharge  a  greater  volume  of  water  than  one  with  a 
rough  or  irregular  surface,  causing  more  friction  and  the  formation 
of  eddies  which  retard  its  easy  flow. 

To  provide  for  such  differences  the  formula  used  contains  a 
factor  varying  with  the  degree  of  roughness,  which  was  determined 
by  the  collation  of  the  results  of  numerous  experiments. 

It  is  therefore  apparent  that  the  estimated  capacity  of  a  certain 
drain  depends  materially  on  the  coefficient  which  has  been  assumed 
in  the  calculations,  a  low  coefficient  of  roughness  presupposing  a 
smooth  surface,  giving  a  greater  discharge  than  a  high  coefficient. 

In  the  calculations  for  capacity  Rutter’s  formula  was  employed 
with  a  coefficient  of  roughness  =  0.013,  the  newer  drains,  at  least, 
being  well  finished  inside.* 


v 


4A£.r  ,  .00281  ,  1.811 

41.65  4* - -  4-  - - 

s  n 


i  + 


n 

\fr 


{ 4L 


65  + 


0.00281  \ 


X \frs  , 


*  Note-.  In  a  few  cases  Avliere  the  cross  sections  are  not  circular,  the  capacities 
are  calculated  by  Bazin’s  formula  (as  adapted  to  brick-work  and  cut  stone), 
v—  pi  -j-  .0000133  (4.354  yrs.  As  this  is  a  suitable  formula  for  the  pur¬ 

pose,  it  has  not  been  thought  necessary  to  re-calculate  such  sections  by  the 
Kutter  formula. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


90 


v  =  mean  velocity  of  discharge  in  feet  per  second. 

n  —  a  coefficient  depending  on  the  character  of  the  inside  surface 
of  the  drain. 

r  =  the  mean  hydraulic  radius  of  the  drain  in  feet. 

*/ 

s  =  the  fall  in  the  hydraulic  grade  per  unit  of  length. 

Third.  That  their  construction  and  stability  were  such  that 
they  might  flow  nearly  full  without  danger  of  rupture  and  that 
exceptional  velocities  up  to  about  18  feet  per  second  would  not  be 
prohibitory. 

To  what  extent  these  assumptions  are  admissible  is  not  known. 
If  allowed  to  flow  but  two-thirds  full  the  list  of  inadequate  drains 
would  of  course  be  increased. 

Generally,  where  of  insufficient  size,  a  lateral  entering  the  main 
below  or  an  intercepting  drain  with  an  independent  outfall  may 
be  constructed  which  will  afford  requisite  relief  of  the  gorged 
section.  It  is  quite  possible  that,  in  some  cases,  the  necessity  of 
such  relief  has  already  been  anticipated. 

1. — Description  of  Drains. 

I.  The  Harris  Creek  or  Harford  Run  Intercepting  Drain 
empties  into  the  Northwest  Branch'  of  the  Patapsco  Biver  near 
the  intersection  of  Boston  and  O’Donnell  streets,  and,  following 
the  valley  of  Harris  Creek  through  Patapsco,  Monument,  Chester, 
Eager  and  Wolfe  streets,  terminates  north  of  North  avenue  east  of 
Chester  street.  It  drains  the  entire  valley  of  Harris  Creek  and, 
in  general,  that  portion  of  Harford  Bun  valley  lying  north  of  the 
Union  B.  B.,  in  all  nearly  2,000  acres.  This  is  the  greatest  area 
'  tributary  to  any  one  drain  in  the  city,  and  the  drain  itself  is  the 
largest  in  size,  being  for  2,207  feet  (to  Eastern  avenue)  24  feet  wide 
and  9  feet  high  inside,  while  in  section  it  is  a  segmental  arch  span¬ 
ning  a  rectangular  channel. 

Its  principal  laterals  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  Ogier  Bun  Lateral  branches  from  the  main  drain  in 
Patterson  Park  and  extends  in  a  northeasterly  direction  to  a  point 
outside  the  park  boundary.  This  drains  about  080  acres  and  has 
a  diameter  of  7  feet. 

2.  The  Patapsco  Street  Drain  extends  from  Monument  street 
north  to  the  Union  B.  B.  and  has  a  diameter  of  0  feet. 


100 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


3.  The  Ann  Street  Lateral  extends  from  Eager  to  Hoffman  street, 
and  terminates  north  of  Gay  street  and  the  Union  B.  It. 

4.  The  Federal  Street  Lateral  extends  in  that  street  from  Wolfe 
street  to  Caroline  street. 

II.  The  Broadway  Drain  runs  from  the  foot  of  Broadway 
through  that  street  to  Gough,  Ann,  Baltimore  and  Wolfe  streets 
to  Jefferson  street,  draining  an  area  of  about  120  acres.  Below 
Canton  avenue  it  is  generally  a  horizontal  ellipse  7  feet  by  4  feet 
in  dimension,  and  above  that  point  circular,  with  diameters  of  from 
4  to  3  feet. 

III.  The  Eden  Street  Drain  extends  from  the  foot  of  Eden 
street  at  the  City  Dock  to  Eastern  avenue,  and  thence  a  short  dis¬ 
tance  west. 

The  lower  part  is  a  6  foot  by  3  foot  3  inch  ellipse  with  a  grade 
of  0.224  per  cent.,  while  the  upper  portion  is  of  uncertain  section. 

IV.  The  Central  Avenue  Drain  extends  from  the  City  Dock 
along  Central  avenue,  Holland  and  Eden  streets  to  Monument 
street,  and  thence  northeasterly  to  Ann  and  Eager  streets,  draining 
the  valley  of  Harford  Bun  below  the  Harford  Bun  Intercepting 
Drain,  about  410  acres  in  all. 

Below  Canton  avenue  this  is  an  open  channel  22  feet  wide,  and 
between  Eastern  avenue  and  Lombard  street  a  segmental  arch 
about  20  feet  in  span  with  a  rectangular  invert,  the  height  being 
4  feet  6  inches  in  the  clear  inside.  Similar  sections,  but  of  reduced 
size,  are  used  for  the  balance  of  this  drain,  excepting  sections  from 
Holland  street  up  Eden  street  to  near  Monument  street,  which  is  a 
10  foot  by  G  foot  ellipse;  from  this  point  to  Bond  and  Abbott 
streets,  which  is  a  circle  G  feet  G  inches  in  diameter,  and  from 
Barnes  street  to  Ann  and  Eager  streets,  which  is  a  circle  7  feet 
G  inches  in  diameter. 

Laterals  to  this  drain  are: 

1.  The  Eden  Street  Lateral  branching  from  the  main  drain  at 
Eastern  avenue,  and  extending  to  Eden  and  Lombard  streets. 
This  is  4  feet  2  inches  in  diameter  to  Pratt  street,  and  then  2  feet 
G  inches  in  diameter. 

2.  The  Central  Avenue  Lateral,  which  extends  in  that  avenue 
from  Holland  street  to  Madison  street,  Avith  diameters  of  from  5 
feet  to  3  feet. 

3.  The  Orleans  Street  Lateral,  which  consists  of  a  24-inch  cast 
iron  pipe  extending  in  Orleans  street  to  Bond. 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


lot 


V.  The  Necessity  Alley  Drain  empties  into  Jones7  Falls  on 
the  east  and  runs  through  Fayette  and  High  streets  and  Necessity 
alley  to  Chesnut  street.  It  varies  in  diameter  from  3  feet  6  inches 
to  2  feet  9  inches. 

Vf.  The  Low  Street  Drain  discharges  into  the  east  side  of 
Jones7  Falls  at  Low  street,  and  runs  thence  in  Low  street,  Rogers 
avenue  and  Front  street  with  diameters  of  5  feet  and  4  feet 
6  inches: 

There  are  two  laterals,  viz.: 

1.  In  Low  street  east  of  Rogers  avenue,  and 

2.  In  Ensor  and  Mott  streets. 

VII.  The  East  Monument  and  McKim  Street  Drain  dis¬ 
charges  into  Jones7  Falls  at  Monument  street  and  runs  through 
Monument  and  McKim  streets  to  Eager  street.  It  is  a  3  foot  by 
4  foot  box  with  grades  of  from  1.07  to  1.77  per  cent. 

VIII.  The  Eager  Street  Drain  runs  from  Jones7  Falls  at  the 
foot  of  Eager  street  to  Valley,  to  Chase,  to  Ensor,  and  to  Biddle 
streets.  It  varies  in  diameter  from  5  feet  to  3  feet. 

IX.  The  Jenkins  Run  Drain  empties  into  Jones7  Falls  be¬ 
tween  Preston  and  Hoffman  streets,  runs  northerly  via  Carter  alley 
to  a  point  135  feet  north  of  Lafayette  avenue,  and  thence  north¬ 
easterly  to  a  point  in  Boone  street  north  of  Twentieth  street.  For 
3,270  feet,  to  a  point  in  Walcott  street,  it  has  cross  sections  of 
from  163  to  49  square  feet,  and  is  built  with  a  segmental  arch. 
Above  this  it  is  circular  and  10  feet  6  inches  in  diameter.  It  drains 
nearly  900  acres,  including  Homestead  and  that  part  of  Waverlv 
east  of  the  York  Road. 

It  has  two  principal  branches: 

1.  In  Hoffman  street  to  Homewood  avenue,  4  feet  in  diameter; 

2.  In  Girard  avenue  to  Barclay  street,  3  feet  in  diameter. 

X.  The  Lovegrove  Alley  Drain  empties  into  Jones’  Falls 
between  Charles  and  St.  Paul  streets,  and  runs  through  Lovegrove 
alley  to  Twenty-first  street,  and  then  in  a  general  northeasterly 
direction  to  Guilford  and  Huntingdon  avenues. 

From  its  mouth  to  Adams  street  it  is  a  2  foot  by  6  foot  box 
spanned  by  a  6  foot  semi-circular  arch.  From  this  point  a  6  foot 
by  6  foot  6  inch  ellipse  is  carried  to  Twenty-first  street,  above  wliicli 
its  section  and  grade  are  unknown.  North  of  Twenty-third  street 
it  has  been  built  and  maintained  as  a  private  drain. 


102 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


XI.  The  North  Charles  Street  Drain  extends  from  Jones’ 
Falls,  east  of  Maryland  avenue,  to  Lanvale  and  Charles  streets, 
and  thence  northerly  to  a  point  about  60  feet  beyond  Twenty- 
second  street,  with  diameters  of  from  5  feet  6  inches  to  3  feet  9 
inches. 

XII.  The  North  Avenue  and  Druid  Hill  Avenue  Intercepting 
Drain  was  built  to  divert  a  portion  of  the  drainage  of  the  old 
McMechen  Street  Drain  (XIII).  From  its  outlet  to  Jones’  Falls 
at  North  avenue  to  North  and  Park  avenues,  it  is  8  feet  in  diam¬ 
eter  and  the  grade — generally  1.5  per  cent. — is  broken  by  several 
drop-wells.  From  North  and  Park  avenues  to  Laurens  street  and 
Druid  Hill  avenue  it  is  7  feet  in  diameter.  At  this  point  it 
reduces  to  a  diameter  of  4  feet  6  inches. 

It  takes  the  drainage  of  some  265  acres. 

The  Druid  Hill  Avenue  Drain  was  intercepted  by  the  drain  just 
described  at  Laurens  street,  above  which  point  it  is  now  an  exten¬ 
sion  of  it.  Its  diameter  is  4  feet  6  inches  as  far  as  Bloom  street, 
from  which  point  it  continues  to  above  North  avenue  with  a 
diameter  of  4  feet. 

The  Division  Street  Lateral  enters  the  main  drain  at  Bloom 
street  and  runs  thence  on  Bloom,  Division  and  Gold  streets  to  and 
a  short  distance  up  Pennsylvania  avenue,  varying  from  3  feet  6 
inches  to  3  feet  in  diameter. 

XIII.  The  Mosher,  John  and  McMechen  Streets  Drain  dis¬ 
charges  into  Jones’  Falls  between  Mosher  street  and  Lafayette 
avenue,  and  runs  thence  through  Mosher,  John  and  McMechen 
streets,  Morris  alley,  Wilson  street  and  Druid  Hill  avenue  to 
Laurens  street,  where  it  is  cut  off  by  the  North  Avenue  and  Druid 
Hill  Avenue  Intercepting  Drain.  It  varies  in  size  from  an  arched 
culvert  12  feet  wide  and  15  feet  high  to  a  circle  4  feet  6  inches  in 
diameter. 

The  Rutter  Run  Lateral  extends  from  the  Northern  Central 
R.  R.  northwesterly  to  a  point  north  of  North  avenue  and  west 
of  Mt.  Royal  avenue.  It  is  an  old  arch  culvert  varying  from  12 
feet  to  5  feet  in  width  and  from  9  feet  6  inches  to  5  feet  in  height. 

It  has  a  lateral  running  from  a  point  80  feet  south  of  McMechen 
street  into  and  along  that  street  to  Rutter  street,  varying  from 
4  feet  6  inches  by  4  feet  6  inches  to  3  feet  6  inches  by  3  feet  6  inches 
in  section  and  now  serves  for  a  small  area  lying  between  the  North 
Avenue  and  Druid  Hill  Avenue  Intercepting  Drain  and  the 
McMechen  Street  Drain. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


103 


XIV.  The  Preston  Street  Drain  discharges  into  Jones’  Falls 
under  the  Maryland  avenue  bridge,  and  runs  through  Maryland 
avenue,  Oliver,  Cathedral  and  Preston  streets  to  Madison  avenue, 
varying  in  diameter  from  5  feet  9  inches  to  3  feet. 

The  Dolphin  Street  Lateral  enters  this  drain  at  Oliver  and 
Cathedral  streets  and  runs  thence  through  Oliver  street,  Mt.  Royal 
avenue  and  Dolphin  street  to  Linden  avenue,  with  diameters  of 
from  4  feet  to  1  foot  8  inches. 

XV.  The  Maryland  Avenue  Drain  empties  into  Jones’  Falls 
just  west  of  Charles  street,  and  follows  Morton  alley,  Oliver  street, 
Maryland  avenue  and  Mt.  Royal  avenue  to  Cathedral  street.  It 
is  4  feet  6  inches  in  diameter. 

XVI.  The  Charles  Street  Drain  runs  in  that  street  from 
Jones’  Falls  to  Mt.  Royal  avenue,  draining  a  district  bounded  on 
the  south  by  Biddle  street,  and  is  3  feet  and  2  feet  9  inches  in 
diameter. 

XVII.  The  Bead  Street  Drain  runs  from  Jones’  Falls 
through  Read  street  to  Cathedral  street,  varying  from  4  feet  to 
20  inches  in  diameter,  the  outlet  for  nearly  600  feet  being  a  40- 
inch  cast  iron  pipe. 

A  short  lateral  extends  in  Morton  alley  to  Madison  street. 

XVIII.  The  Centre  Street  Drain  extends  in  that  street  from 
Jones’  Falls  to  St.  Paul  street,  the  drainage  area  extending  as  far 
as  Eutaw  and  Madison  streets.  The  section  below  North  street  is 
an  arch  culvert  8  feet  wide  and  4  feet  8J  inches  high,  while  above 
this  point  the  form  is  that  of  an  arch  culvert  4  feet  wide  and  4  feet 
3  inches  high.  The  section  below  Holliday  street  is  not  known. 

XIX.  The  Bath  Street  Drain  runs  from  Jones’  Falls  up  Bath, 
Calvert  and  Franklin  streets  to  near  Courtland  street.  It  has 
sections  of  from  8  feet  by  5  feet  to  4  feet  6  inches  by  3  feet. 

A  4  foot  by  2  foot  6  inch  lateral  runs  from  Bath  and  Calvert 
streets  through  the  latter  and  Mulberry  street  to  near  Courtland 
street. 

XX.  The  Saratoga  Street  Drain  discharges  into  Jones’  Falls 
north  of  Gay  street,  and  runs  up  Saratoga  street  to  Calvert.  The 
diameter  is  3  feet,  and  the  grade  about  0.5  per  cent. 

XXI.  The  Cross  Street  Drain  empties  into  the  Harbor  at  the 
foot  of  Cross  street,  and  runs  thence  through  a  tunnel  under  Cross 
street  to  Light  street,  and  thence  to  Warren  avenue,  with  a 


104 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


segmental  arch  culvert  at  the  outlet  and  diameters  of  5  feet  9  inches 
on  Cross  street  and  4  feet  on  Light  street. 

A  lateral  extends  from  Cross  and  Light  streets  on  Light  street, 
West  street  and  Battery  avenue  to  Clement  street,  varying  from  4 
to  2  feet  in  diameter. 

XXII.  The  Fort  Avenue  Drain  discharges  into  the  Middle 
Branch  at  the  foot  of  that  avenue,  and  runs  thence  easterly  to 
Light  street,  with  diameters  of  5  feet,  3  feet  6  inches  and  3  feet. 

XXIII.  The  Race  Street  Drain  runs  from  the  Middle  Branch  at 
Spring  Gardens  through  private  property  to  Stockholm,  Race, 
Cross  and  Charles  streets.  It  is  a  segmental  arch  culvert  11  feet 
wide  by  8  feet  high  below  West  street,  and  11  feet  by  3  feet  6  inches 
above  that  street. 

XXIV.  The  Hoivard  Street  Drain  discharges  into  Spring- 
Gardens  at  the  foot  of  Howard  street,  and  runs  through  Howard, 
Liberty,  Park,  Lexington  and  Howard  streets  to  Mulberry,  with 
sizes  varying  from  a  7  foot  6  inch  by  4  foot  6  inch  ellipse  to  a  2  foot 
9  inch  circle. 

The  Tratt  Street  Relief  Drain  discharges  into  the  Basin  at  Light 
street,  and  runs  west  on  Pratt  street  to  Howard,  where  it  taps  the 
Howard  Street  Drain.  It  is  3  feet  in  diameter. 

XXV.  The  Chatsworth  Run  System  consists,  in  general,  of 
drains  running  from  Columbia  and  Fremont  avenues  (1)  up  Fre¬ 
mont  avenue  to  Saratoga  street  and  (2)  up  Penn,  Arch,  Pearl  and 
Tessier  streets  to  Biddle  street,  with  two  outlets  from  the  same 
point,  one  continuing  down  Fremont  avenue  and  Eutaw  street  to 
the  Middle  Branch  of  the  Patapsco,  and  the  other  west  of,  and 
approximately  parallel  to  Paca  street  to  Scott  and  through  Allu¬ 
vion  street — whence  it  is  known  as  the  Alluvion  Street  Drain — to  its 
mouth  at  the  Middle  Branch.  The  entire  system  drains  an  area  of 
about  740  acres — 410  acres  above  the  intersection  in  Columbia  and 
Fremont  avenues  and  330  acres  below. 

1.  The  Fremont  Street  Lateral  drains  about  107  acres  and  varies 
from  an  8  foot  by  4  foot  10  inch  to  an  8  foot  by  4  foot  6  inch 
horizontal  ellipse  in  section. 

2.  The  Penn  Street  Lateral  is  in  section  a  segmental  arch  over 
a  nearly  rectangular  box  as  far  as  Arch  and  Baltimore  streets,  then 
an  ellipse  to  Pearl  street  south  of  George,  and  the  balance  a  circle, 
the  cross-sectional  areas  of  which  vary  from  106  to  16  square  feet. 

The  Pine  Street  and  Pennsvl vania  Avenue  Branch  leaves  the 

e/ 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


105 


Penn  street  lateral  at  German  street  and  runs  through  German, 
Pine  and  Saratoga  streets,  Myrtle  avenue  and  Greenwillow  street, 
Shields  alley,  Hoffman  street  and  Pennsylvania  avenue  to  Lafay¬ 
ette  avenue,  varying  from  a  G  foot  by  a  5  foot  ellipse  to  a  3  foot 
circle  in  size. 

3.  The  Eutaw  Street  Outlet  varies  from  a  12  foot  by  8  foot  box 
culvert  to  a  9  foot  3  inch  circle. 

4.  The-  Old  Chatsworth  Run  Outlet,  or  that  in  Scott  and  Alluvion 

streets,  is  in  form  a  segmental  arch  spanning  a  nearly  rectangular 

channel.  It  varies  in  section  from  20  feet  by  7  feet  9  inches  to  15 

feet  bv  6  feet  4  inches. 

«/ 

XXVI.  The  Schroeder  Run  System  drains  nearly  900  acres 
lying  in  general  east  of  Monroe  and  south  of  Presstman  streets  and 
adjoining  the  Chatsworth  Run  district  on  the  west. 

The  main  drain  follows,  in  general,  the  following  course  from  its 
outlet  at  the  Middle  Branch,  viz.:  through  Bush,  Herkimer,  Care}7, 
Franklin  and  Calhoun  streets  to  Mosher.  It  is  next  to  the  Harford 
Run  Intercepting  Drain  in  size  as  well  as  in  area  drained.  It  con¬ 
sists  at  the  outlet — where  it  is  known  as  the  Bush  Street  Drain — 
of  a  segmental  arch  with  a  5  foot  rise  over  a  channel  25  feet  wide 
and  4  feet  high,  diminishing  to  a  7  foot  circle  at  Carey  and  Ramsay 
streets  and  a  4  foot  G  inch  circle  for  the  portion  on  Calhoun  street. 

1.  The  Old  Schroeder  Run  Lateral  leaves  the  main  drain  at 
Ramsay  street,  runs  northeasterly  under  the  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  shops 
and  other  private  property  to  Lombard  and  Schroeder  streets,  to 
Baltimore  street,  and  northwesterly  to  Mulberry  and  Carey  streets. 
It  is,  in  general,  a  segmental  arched  culvert  varying  from  14  feet 
3  inches  in  width  by  9  feet  in  height  to  8  feet  by  5  feet. 

2.  The  Calhoun  Street  Lateral  also  branches  from  the  main  drain 
at  Ramsay  street  and  runs  up  the  latter  and  Calhoun  street  to  a 
point  in  Lanvale  street.  Branches  to  the  west  occur  on  Baltimore, 
Saratoga  and  Franklin  streets,  extending  to  Gilmor  street.  The 
Franklin  street  branch  continues  up  Gilmor  street  to  Edmondson 
avenue.  Their  sizes  are  as  follows: 

Calhoun  Street  Lateral,  7  ft.  diam.  to  4  ft.  9  in.  diarn. 

Baltimore  Street  Lateral,  4  ft.  diam.  to  3  ft.  G  in.  diam. 

Saratoga  Street  Lateral,  2  ft.  cast  iron  pipe. 

Franklin  Street  Lateral,  2  ft.  cast  iron  pipe. 

3.  The  Fulton  Avenue  and  Eagle  Street  Lateral  empties  at 
present  into  Carroll’s  Run  near  the  northeast  corner  of  Carroll  Park, 


106  REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 

and  extends  in  Ohio  avenue,  Fulton  avenue,  Eagle  street  and 
Monroe  street  to  Ramsay  street,  with  diameters  of  5  feet  9  inches  to 
3  feet  6  inches.  It  drains  about  122  acres. 

A  branch  of  this  continues  up  Fulton  avenue  from  Eagle  street 
to  Ramsay  street,  with  diameters  of  from  3  feet  44  inches  to  2  feet 
6  inches. 

XXVII.  The  Franklin  and  Pulaski  Streets  Drain  serves  as  an 
outlet  for  the  drainage  of  some  600  acres  lying  to  the  west  of  Fulton 
avenue,  that  is  as  yet  but  sparsely  built  up.  It  empties  into  a 
small  stream  in  Smallwood  street  130  feet  south  of  Franklin  street, 
and  runs  in  Smallwood,  Franklin,  Pulaski  and  Lanvale  streets  into 
Price  alley,  witli  diameters  of  11  feet  and  10  feet  6  inches. 

Beginning  again  at  a  stream  in  Baker  street,  west  of  Baker 
Circle,  the  drain  continues  to  Fulton  avenue  to  Presbury  street  and 
in  Bruce  alley  to  and  across  North  avenue,  with  diameters  of  8  feet 
9  inches  and  8  feet. 

XXVIII.  The  Tiffany  Run  Drain  was  built  by  the  Water  De¬ 
partment  to  divert  the  drainage  of  this  run  from  the  embankment  of 
Lake  Montebello,  and  takes  the  storm  water  from  about  1,000  acres, 
500  of  which  lie  outside  the  city  limits,  but  all  of  which  are  rural 
in  character,  to  an  outlet  in  Herring  Run.  From  the  latter  point 
the  drain  runs  near  the  north  side  of  Lake  Montebello,  intercepting 
the  flow  from  several  small  watercourses,  and  terminates  at  the 
Hi  lien  Road,  being  9  feet  in  diameter  throughout. 

2.  Adequacy  of  the  Existing  Drains. 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  results  found  as  to  the  adequacy 
of  the  present  drains  to  discharge  the  flow-off  of  extreme  down¬ 
pours,  under  the  supposition  that  the  drainage  area  is  well  built 
up  and  paved — a  condition  which  it  is  assumed  will  obtain  in  the 
future,  as  it  already  does  in  most  cases. 

Some  instances  are  also  given  where  excessive  velocities  will  occur 
in  the  drains  running  full  or  half  full.  With  the  steep  slopes  occur¬ 
ring  in  many  parts  of  the  city  the  grade  of  the  drain,  unless  broken  by 
drop-wells  or  stepping,  produces  such  currents  during  hard  storms 
that  a  comparatively  small  obstruction  or  weak  detail  in  the  struc¬ 
ture,  such  as  a  piece  of  board  or  a  few  displaced  bricks,  may  readily 
cause  bursting  or  collapse.  Under  such  conditions, when  a  rupture 
takes  place,  great  damage  may  occur  to  the  adjacent  property  as 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


107 


well  as  to  the  drain.  Such  cases  have  not  been  infrequent  in  the 
past. 

The  following  drains  have  been  found  of  inadequate  capacity 
when  running  full. 

a.  The  Harford  Run  Intercepting  Drain  (I).  The  section  3,207 
feet  in  length  from  the  outlet  to  the  Ogier  Run  Lateral,  having 
grades  of  0.138  per  cent,  and  0.300  per  cent.,  and  which  drains  over 
1,700  acres,  as  well  as  a  section  418  feet  in  length  and  8  feet  in 
diameter  just  below  Oliver  street,  with  grades  of  0.100  per  cent, 
and  0.237  per  cent.,  may  both  be  expected  to  run  more  than  full 
during  heavy  downpours  under  existing  conditions.  When,  how¬ 
ever,  this  watershed  is  more  densely  built  up  nearly  all  of  this 
drain  below  Oliver  street  will  require  relief.  This  may  be  provided 
by  a  drain  from  the  foot  of  Patuxent  street  to  Eastern  avenue,  and 
from  thence  northeasterly,  intercepting  the  flow-off  from,  and  north 
of,  Highlandtown. 

Above  Oliver  street  the  capacity  appears  ample. 

The  Ogier  Run  Lateral  (1)  with  a  grade  of  0.513  per  cent.,  will 
have  but  about  one-half  the  required  capacity  when  its  tributary 
area  is  built  up.  The  drain  proposed  above  in  Patuxent  street  for 
the  relief  of  the  main  drain  may  be  designed  so  as  to  intercept  as 
much  drainage  as  is  necessary  from  this  lateral. 

b.  The  Jenkins  Run  Drain  (IX)  from  Girard  avenue  to  a  point 
in  Greenmount  avenue  174  feet  south  of  Xorth  avenue,  having 
cross  sections  of  65  and  49  square  feet  and  grades  of  from  1.04  per 
cent,  to  0.22  per  cent.,  is  of  insufficient  capacity. 

c.  The  Division  Street  Lateral  of  the  North  Avenue  and  Druid 
Hill  Avenue  Intercepting  Drain  (XII).  From  Division  street  70 
feet  north  of  Bloom  street  this  is  3  feet  in  diameter  and  has  grades 
of  from  2.12  per  cent,  to  0.77  per  cent.  It  is  too  small  to  provide 
for  its  tributary  area,  but  may  be  relieved  by  a  lateral  up  Division 
street. 

d.  The  Howard  Street  Drain  (XXIV)  receives  the  flow-off  from 
about  200  acres.  It  is  inadequate  below  Hamburg  street,  but  this 
section  is  relieved  by  an  emergency  drain  outlet  through  Pratt 
street. 

From  Wayne  street  to  Fayette  street  it  is  5  feet  and  4  feet  6 
inches  in  diameter,  with  grades  of  from  1.08  per  cent,  to  0.84  per 
cent.,  and  is  of  inadequate  size  for  exceptional  storms. 

e.  The  Pine  Street  and  Pennsylvania  Avenue  Branch  of  the 


108 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


l’enn  Street  Drain  (Cliatsworth  Bun  System,  XXV)  from  Sliields 
alley  and  Hoffman  street  to  Pennsylvania  avenue  and  Lanvale 
street  is  of  too  small  capacity.  It  varies  from  a  6  foot  by  4  foot 
ellipse  with  a  0.90  per  cent,  grade  to  a  4  foot  circle  with  a  1.25  per 
cent,  grade. 

f.  The  main  drain  of  the  Schroeder  Bun  System  lying  in  Calhoun 
street  from  a  point  about  400  feet  north  of  Franklin  street  to 
Lanvale  street  is  4  feet  0  inches  in  diameter,  has  grades  of  1.388 
per  cent,  and  1.25  per  cent.,  and  drains  about  130  acres.  It  is  of 
too  limited  capacity. 

In  addition  to  the  above  list  there  are  many  drains  whose 
capacity  is  open  to  question,  but,  depending  on  the  smoothness  of 
their  interior,  the  precise  area  draining  to  them  and  the  method  of 
collection,  they  may  prove  adequate. 

The  following  are  lists  of  inadequate  drains,  and  those  of  ques¬ 
tionable  adequacy,  general  descriptions  of  which  may  be  found 
in  Section  1. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


109 


POINTS  AT  WHICH  PRESENT  DRAINS  HAVE  INADE¬ 
QUATE  CAPACITY  FOR  CITY  CONDITIONS. 


1 

Drain. 

• 

Location. 

Size. 

Area  sq.  ft. 

Mean  Radius. 

Hydraulic  Slope* 

Present  capacity  cu. 

ft.  per  sec.  full. 

T3 

<V 

S3 

•  rH 

O 

<1 

Average  slope 

per  1000. 

Eventual  run-off 

cu.  ft.  per  sec. 

I. 

Boston  St . . 

24/  x  97  6// 

187 

3.17 

0.138 

1550 

1900 

30 

2210 

Canton  Ave . 

24 /  x  9/  6" 

179 

3.08 

0.138 

1400 

1870 

30 

2150 

Ogier  Run  Junction . 

1 V  x  9'  6// 

134 

2.90 

0.300 

1580 

1710 

30 

2000 

Baltimore  St . 

• 

HP  diam. 

78 

2.50 

0.028 

1320 

1025 

30 

1330 

Patapsco  St.  and  Monu¬ 
ment  St . 

1(P  “ 

78 

2.50 

0.354 

980 

888 

30 

1170 

Burke  St . 

10^  “ 

78 

2.50 

0.250 

840 

088 

30 

970 

Oliver  St . 

8/  “ 

50 

2.00 

0.237 

440 

457 

30 

090 

Ogier  Run  Lat.  Patterson 
Park . 

7/  u 

38.5 

1.75 

0.513 

400 

012 

25 

850 

IX. 

Girard  Ave . 

10'xlO/  2" 

05 

1.85 

1.105 

1152 

800 

50 

1210 

XII. 

Division  St.  and  Gold  St. 

3/  diam. 

7.1 

0.75 

2.122 

97 

48 

25 

110 

Gold  St.  and  Penna.  Ave. 

3/  u 

7.1 

0.75 

1.270 

75 

34 

25 

85 

XXIV. 

Cross  St . 

V  0"x4'  6// 

20.5 

1.38 

0.432 

249 

180 

20 

305 

Hamburg  St . 

7/  6"x4/  6// 

20.5 

1.38 

0.519 

270 

175 

25 

310 

Lombard  St.  and  Liberty 
St . .  . 

5/  diam. 

19.0 

1.25 

0.050 

213 

110 

30 

225 

Baltimore  St . 

V  6//  diam. 

15.9 

1.13 

0.944 

192 

93 

40 

205 

Fayette  St . 

4  '6"  “ 

15.9 

1.13 

0.844 

182 

81 

40 

180 

XXV. 

Shields  Al.  and  Hoffman 
St . 

0/  x4/ 

15.7 

0.99 

0.900 

170 

102 

25 

203 

Penna.  Ave.  and  Hoff¬ 
man  St . 

4/  diam. 

12.0 

1.00 

1.250 

102 

94 

25 

192 

Penna.  Ave.  and  Lauvale 
St . 

3/  u 

7.1 

0.75 

1.190 

72 

50 

25 

115 

XXVI. 

Calhoun  St.  near  Edmond¬ 
son  Ave . 

47  6/7  cliam. 

- 

15.9 

1.13 

1.388 

233 

131 

30 

255 

110 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


LIST  OF  DRAINS  OF  QUESTIONABLE  ADEQUACY. 


o 

£ 

From 

To 

Capacity 
cu.  ft.  per  sec. 

c3 

Q 

From 

To 

I. 

Ogier  Run 

400/  above  Ogier  Run. 

1500 

Eager  Street 

Chase  Street. 

760 

II. 

Outlet 

Aliceanna  Street. 

130 

80 

Gougli  Street 

Wolfe  Street  and  Fairmount 
Ave. 

135 

67 

IV. 

Central  Ave.  S.  of  Eastern 
Ave. 

Eden  St.  and  Pratt  St. 

111 

84 

Central  Ave.  and  Jefferson 
Street 

McElderry  Street. 

80 

87 

Orleans  St.  and  Eden  St. 

Bond  Street. 

39 

39 

III. 

Outlet 

Eastern  Ave. 

86 

XII. 

Druicl  Hill  Ave.  and  Lau¬ 
rens  Street 

Between  Robert  and  Presst- 
man  Streets. 

356 

384 

XX. 

Outlet 

Calvert  Street. 

47 

XXVI. 

Calhoun  St.  near  Edmond¬ 
son  Ave. 

Calhoun  St.  and  Lanvale  St. 

333 

On  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  drains  have  been  built  of  a 
capacity  which  would  seem  unwarranted  from  the  areas  tributary 
to  them.  Of  these  may  be  mentioned  the  following : 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


111 


t 


DRAINS  OF  EXCESSIVE  CAPACITY. 


Drain  No. 

I 

Location. 

Size. 

Area  sq.  ft. 

Mean  Radius. 

Hydraulic  Slope. 

Present  capacity 

cu.  ft.  per  sec.,  full. 

Acres  drained. 

Ave.  slope  per 

1000. 

Eventual  run-off 

cu.  ft.  per  sec. 

assuming  r  =  4. 

I. 

Eager  St.  E.  of 

Ann  St . 

8'  diam. 

50.3 

2.00 

0.289 

490 

55 

20 

134 

Ann  St.  &  Chase 

St . 

V  6"  diam. 

44.2 

1.88 

0.266 

400 

53 

25 

136 

Gay  St.  50  ft.  E. 

of  Ann  St . 

5/  9//  diam. 

26.0 

1.44 

0-773 

336 

46 

30 

126 

IY. 

*  Watson  St . 

16/x6/ 

77.4 

1.95 

1.948 

1840 

299 

30 

568 

Hampstead  St. . . . 

1 6/x6/ 

77.4 

1.95 

0.923 

1275 

290 

30 

555 

Nicholson  Alley. . 

15/x7/ 

83.0 

2.18 

1.007 

1540 

285 

30 

542 

Eden  Street  above 

McElderry  St.  . 

10/x6/ 

47.0 

1.84 

1.244 

885 

128 

30 

290 

Madison  St.  &  Car- 

oline  St . 

G/  G"  diam. 

33.2 

1.62 

0.734 

460 

70 

30 

180 

Bond  St.  &  Abbott 

St . 

6/  6"  diam. 

33.2 

1.62 

0.541 

395 

52 

30 

142 

W.  S.  Broadway .  . 

12/x6/  6" 

63.8 

1.96 

0.735 

955 

44 

25 

118 

Ann  St.  &  Eager  St. 

7r  G"  diam. 

44.2 

1.88 

0.266 

400 

22 

25 

68 

XI. 

Lanvale  St . 

5'  G"  diam. 

23.8 

1.38 

2.000 

483 

71 

25 

174 

XIII. 

McMechen  St.  W. 

of  Bolton  St.. .  . 

4/  9//x8/ 

31.6 

1.44 

2.052 

666 

116 

25 

257 

XVII. 

Centre  St.  &  Cal- 

vert  St . 

4'x4'  3" 

15.6 

1.04 

3.671 

363 

64 

60 

147 

XXIII. 

Leadenliall  St.  . . . 

ll/x8/ 

77.0 

2.29 

0.250 

730 

100 

15 

206 

XXY. 

Penn  St.  <So  Haw 

St . 

18/x7/  3" 

106.2 

2.39 

0.750 

1795 

345 

25 

620 

Penn  St.  &  Lom- 

bard  St . 

16'x8' 

104.7 

2.51 

0.945 

2017 

328 

25 

594 

German  St.  &Arcli 

St . 

18/x7/  o" 

105.0 

2.41 

1.000 

2048 

127 

32 

297 

XXVI. 

Bush  St.  Ham- 

burg  St . 

25'xfF 

184.0 

3.04 

0.500 

2884 

825 

30 

1262 

Carey  St.  &  Lom- 

bard  St . 

7/  diam. 

38.5 

1.75 

2.500 

1030 

181 

30 

380 

Fulton  Ave.&  Ram 

say  St . 

3/  4%//x2/  G" 

7.1 

0.74 

2.678 

114 

5± 

45 

23 

*  The  run-off  to  this  drain  has  been  partly  cut  off,  since  its  construction,  by 
the  Harford  Run  Intercepting  Drain  (I). 

Note :  From  what  is  known  of  a  few  of  the  drains,  it  is  assumed  that  the 
interior  finish  of  them  in  this  table  will  warrant  the  use  of  a  coefficient  of 
roughness  approximating  .013.  If,  however,  they  should  have  an  interior  sur¬ 
face  warranting  a  coefficient  of  roughness  equal  to  0.015  they  would  still  be  of 
excessive  capacity.  If  of  yet  inferior  finish,  a  few  of  the  list  may  prove  to  be 
not  excessive  in  capacity, 


112 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


It  will  be  noticed  that  in  these  tables  the  capacity  of  the  drain 
is  given  when  running  full.  To  avoid  the  likelihood  of  rupture  in 
case  of  accidental  obstruction  or  possible  weakness  the  drain  should 
be  designed  to  run  but  partly  full,  but  an  allowance  of  50  per  cent, 
above  the  calculated  capacity  is  deemed  sufficient  for  any  ordinary 
case.  It  will  also  be  seen  that  in  the  list  of  drains  of  excessive 
capacity  a  rate  of  rainfall  of  4  inches  per  hour  has  been  assumed 
instead  of  34  inches. 


MISCELLANEOUS  NOTES  REGARDING-  THE  CAPACITIES 

OE  DRAINS. 

If  the  Broadway  Drain  (II)  should  be  found  inadequate  it  may 

be  relieved  by  a  drain  on  Wolfe  street  or  Washington  street  inter- 

♦ 

cepfing  the  flow  from  the  east. 

The  precise  areas  intended  to  be  drained  by  this  and  the  Eden 
Street  Drain  (III)  are  not  known,  but  if  the  latter  is  expected  to 
take  the  flow-off  from  the  west  of  the  Broadway  Drain,  it  is  too 
small.  Probably  a  part  of  this  flows  bevond  to  the  Central  Avenue 

*j  i  t 

Drain. 

The  Central  Avenue  Drain  (IV),  built  at  various  times,  is  a  good 
illustration  of  the  result  to  be  expected  where  such  a  structure  is 
designed  and  built  piecemeal  by  different  persons,  with  no  unity 
either  in  the  assumed  conditions  to  be  met  or  in  the  method  of 
dealing  with  them. 

For  instance,  if  equally  well  built,  the  following  conditions  exist: 

At  Pratt  street  the  capacity  is  600  cubic  feet  per  second,  with  a 
velocity  of  10  feet  per  second. 

At  Watson  street  the  capacity  is  1,840  cubic  feet  per  second,  with 
a  velocity  of  24  feet  per  second. 

Above  Hampstead  street  the  capacity  is  720  cubic  feet  per  second, 
with  a  velocity  of  11  feet  per  second. 

At  Nicholson  street  the  capacity  is  1,540  cubic  feet  per  second,  with 
a  velocity  of  18  feet  per  second. 

At  McElderry  street  the  capacity  is  275  cubic  feet  per  second,  with 
a  velocity  of  6  feet  per  second. 

100  feet  below  Monument  street  the  capacity  is  885  cubic  feet  per 
second,  with  a  velocity  of  19  feet  per  second. 

At  Bond  street  the  capacity  is  395  cubic  feet  per  second,  with  a 
velocity  of  11  feet  per  second. 

Between  Abbott  street  and  Broadway  the  capacity  is  955  cubic  feet 
per  second,  with  a  velocity  of  15  feet  per  second. 


FOE  TIIE  CITY  OF  BALT  I  MO  EE 


1 13 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  large  sums  of  money  may  be  virtually 

thrown  away  for  want  of  the  intelligence  necessary  merely  to  limit 

the  capacity  of  the  extension  of  a  drain  to  that  of  the  section 

already  built  below  it. 

*/ 

The  laterals  to  this  drain  which  have  been  mentioned  as  possibly 
inadequate,  may,  should  they  prove  so,  be  relieved  by  allowing 
portions  of  their  collection  areas  to  drain  directly  to  the  main  drain, 
as  is  possibly  the  case  now,  to  a  certain  extent. 

The  inadequate  section  of  the  Jenkins  Run  Drain  (IX)  may  be 
relieved  by  carrying  the  lateral  in  Greenmount  avenue  under  the 
main  drain  and  down  Greenmount  avenue  to  a  junction  with  it 
at  Girard  avenue,  below  which  its  capacity  is  ample. 

The  North  Charles  Street  Drain  (XI)  is  perhaps  intended  to 
supplant  the  Lovegrove  Alley  Drain,  which  was  built  a  long  time 
ago  and  may  be  insecure,  or  it  may  be  intended  to  intercept  the 
headwaters  of  Sum  wait  Run  by  tunnelling  the  summit  at  Twenty- 
ninth  street  ;  otherwise  the  capacity  of  this  drain  is  largely  in  excess 
of  its  requirements,  having  but  a  narrow'  strip  v^est  of  the  Love- 
grove  alley  drainage  area  to  provide  for. 

The  Druid  Hill  Avenue  Drain  (XII)  appears  of  barely  sufficient 
capacity  for  the  first  630  feet  (being  less  than  25  per  cent,  of  the 
section  immediately  below  in  McMechen  street),  but  if  in  good 
condition  this  drain  may  serve  for  the  present,  and  wiien  necessary 
it  can  be  supplemented  by  a  drain  in  McCulloh  street. 

The  Rutter  Run  Lateral  (XIII)  now  serves  but  a  small  area  to  the 
w  est  of  the  Mt.  Royal  reservoir.  If  necessary,  it  may  be  extended 
so  as  to  relieve  the  main  drain. 

It  is  not  knowm  why  the  Maryland  Avenue  Drain  (XV)  Avas 
built  of  so  great  capacity,  as  the  area  .above  its  upper  end  is 
served  by  the  drain  in  Preston  street;  or,  if  built  first,  wThy  it  was 
not  untilized  as  an  outlet  for  said  drain. 

Drain  XIX  is  excessh'e  in  capacity,  but  as  the  elements  of  its 
design  are  not  obtainable,  it  wras  not  included  in  the  foregoing 
table. 

The  Pratt  Street  Relief  Drain  (XXIV)  is  of  proper  capacity  to 
afford  an  outlet  for  such  extreme  discharges  as  the  main  in  Howard 
street  will  not  accommodate,  but  is  inadequate  to  serve  as  Avell  for 
the  disposal  of  the  storm  water  of  its  own  area. 

The  E  u taw  street  outlet  of  the  Chatsworth  Run  System  (XXV) 
would,  if  Avell  built  and  clean,  be  nearly  adequate  to  take  the 
HoAv-off  of  the  entire  Chatsworth  Run  district.  It  is,  however, 


114 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


relieved  by  the  Old  Chatsworth  Run  or  Scott  street  outlet,  which, 
too,  under  similar  conditions,  would  be  of  nearly  adequate  capacity 
for  the  purpose. 

The  Old  Schroeder  Run  Lateral  (XXYI)  having  been  intercepted 
by  the  main  drain  in  Carey  street,  its  capacity  is  largely  in  excess 
of  requirements. 

The  Tiffany  Run  Drain  (XXVIII)  is  of  proper  capacity,  assuming, 
as  seems  reasonable  for  this  district,  that  but  about  50  per  cent,  of 
the  storm  water  flows  directly  to  the  drain. 

There  remains  for  consideration  the  question  of  the  velocities 
occurring  during  times  of  flood.  Extreme  normal  velocities  cause  a 
gradual  erosion  of  the  invert  by  the  transport  of  sand  and  other 
detritus,  while  extreme  maximum  velocities  may  lead,  in  addition, 
to  sudden  and  extensive  breaks.  Such  maximum  velocities  should 
not  exceed  16,  or  at  most  18,  feet  per  second.  Assuming  the  drain 
to  run  full  or  half  full,  there  would  result  in 


Drain 

•  I. 

u 

IX. 

a 

X. 

u 

XI. 

“  XIII. 


u 


XXV. 


ii 


XXVI. 


u 


XXVII. 


Federal  Street  Lateral,  velocities  up  to  19  feet  per 
second. 

Lower  end  to  above  Oliver  street,  velocities  of  20  feet 
per  second. 

Union  Station  to  Adams  street,  velocities  approach¬ 
ing  30  feet  per  second. 

Below  Lanvale  street,  velocities  up  to  20  feet  per 
second. 

Outlet  to  near  Eutaw  Place,  velocities  of  19  to  24 
feet  per  second. 

Penn  Street  Lateral,  Columbia  avenue  to  Balti¬ 
more  street,  velocities  of  17  to  24  feet  per  second. 

Hamburg  street  to  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  shops,  velocities  of 
17  to  27  feet  per  second. 

Ramsay  street  to  Fayette  street,  velocities  of  18  to  26 
feet  per  second. 

Franklin  street,  Carey  street  to  Calhoun  street,  veloci¬ 
ties  of  17  feet  per  second. 

Lanvale  street  to  Mosher  street,  velocities  of  17  feet 
per  second. 

Carey  street  and  Ramsay  street  to  Calhoun  and  Lan¬ 
vale  streets,  velocities  of  16  to  22  feet  per  second. 

Smallwood  street  to  Brice  alley,  velocities  of  20  to  22 
feet  per  second. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


115 

It  is  to  be  understood  that  in  those  drains  having  either  a  rough 
interior  surface  or  such  a  capacity  that  they  never  run  half  full, 
the  velocities  named  may  never  obtain,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  nearly  all  the  above  are  subject  to  higher  velocities  than 
should  be  permitted. 

3.  Suggestions  as  to  the  Improvement  of  Improperly 

Designed  Drains. 

Aside  from  the  stability  of  the  structures,  wliicli  is  not  here 
considered,  the  more  serious  faults  in  design  are  those  which  result 
(1)  in  inadequate  capacity,  resulting  in  a  gorging  of  the  drain  and 
an  overflow  upon  adjacent  premises;  (2)  excessive  capacity,  resulting- 
in  unnecessary  cost  of  construction  and,  combined  with  low 
gradients,  in  small  velocities  causing  deposits  of  silt,  etc.;  (3)  ex¬ 
cessive  velocities,  resulting  in  undue  erosion  of  the  invert  and  in 
possible  rupture  during  floods. 

Where  the  capacity  is  inadequate,  drainage  from  a  part  of  its 
area  of  collection  may  be  intercepted  and  led  to  a  point  below  the 
inadequate  section,  or  directly  to  an  independent  outfall. 

The  unnecessary  expense  incurred  on  drains  of  excessive  capacity 
cannot,  of  course,  be  recovered;  but  where  deposits  are  found  to 
occur  the  flow  may  be  improved  by  giving  the  invert  a  new  and 
smooth  lining  of  vitrified  brick,  or  by  building  a  new  invert  of  semi¬ 
circular  or  oval  section  inside  the  old  one,  to  concentrate  the  flow 
and  hence  increase  the  scouring  action. 

3.  Excessive  velocities  will  be  difficult  to  avoid  without  entire 
reconstruction,  increasing  the  friction  by  using  flat  inverts  and 
introducing  drop-wells  or  steps  to  break  the  current.  Excessive 
erosion  of  the  invert  may  be  remedied  by  relining  with  granite 
blocks  or  by  the  use  of  cast  iron  invert  plates. 

Yet  another  defect  exists  in  the  Baltimore  drains,  and  should 
receive  attention  until  sewage  proper  is  no  longer  admitted,  namely, 
the  discharge  of  offensive  gases  from  inlets.  This  occurs,  at  its 
worst,  at  the  upper  ends  of  drains,  especially  those  having  steep 
slopes,  and  depends  largely  on  the  relative  temperatures  in  the  drain 
and  of  the  outside  air  and  on  other  meteorological  conditions. 

A  partial  remedy  by  increasing  the  dispersion  of  these  gases  may 
be  had  by  hanging  gates  or  flaps  in  the  drains  at  changes  of  grades 
and  junctions  which  will  swing  freely  by  the  flow  of  the  drainage 
downstream,  but  will  nearly  close  by  air  currents  ascending  the 
drain,  thereby  forcing  them  through  the  manholes  to  the  outer  air. 


11  (i 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Ventilation  through  manhole  covers  should  be  as  free  as  possible, 
and  undue  deposits  of  sediment  should  be  removed  by  hand  or  by 
flushing. 

It  is,  moreover,  recommended  that  as  a  matter  of  safety,  wherever 
inlet  openings  exceed  six  inches  in  height,  suitable  bars  or  gratings 
be  provided  as  a  protection  to  life. 

B. — Extensions  to  the  Present  Drainage  Systeh. 

The  existing  drains  built  by  the  city  aggregate  about  33  miles  in 
length,  cost  some  $4,000,000,  and  provide  outlet  for  nearly  13  square 
miles  of  territory,  or  about  two-fifths  of  the  entire  area  within  the 
city  limits.  This  includes  the  greater  part  of  the  more  densely 
populated  districts. 

The  following  well  built-up  areas  remain  unprovided  for : 

1.  An  area  rougldy  described  as  lying  between  the  Basin,  Mont¬ 
gomery,  Sharp,  Fayette,  Front,  Baltimore,  Lloyd  and  Stiles  streets 
and  Jones’  Falls. 

2.  An  area  lying  between  that  tributary  to  the  Broadway  Drain 
(II)  and  Patterson  Park. 

3.  Certain  areas  near  Riverside  Park. 

4.  Certain  areas  in  and  about  Woodberry. 

These  will  all  require  provision  in  the  near  future. 

The  greatest  outlay,  however,  will  be  required  in  developing  the 
drainage  systems  already  begun,  and  may,  in  brief,  be  best  accom¬ 
plished  by  the  construction  of  laterals,  usually  of  small  dimension, 
from  two  to  four  blocks  apart  at  right  angles  to  the  main  drain. 
Such  an  arrangement  will  avoid  large  laterals  in  deep  excavation 
which  might  interfere  with  the  proposed  network  of  sewers,  and 
by  providing  frequent  inexpensive  inlets  the  carriage  of  storm  water 
for  long  distances  by  the  gutters,  with  its  objectionable  features, 
will  become  unnecessary. 

Areas  lying  adjacent  to  tidewater  and  the  natural  lines  of  drain¬ 
age,  such  as  Jones’  Falls,  Gwynn’s  Falls  or  Herring  Run  may, 
perhaps,  be  best  served  by  short  drains  discharging  directly  into 
these  whenever  it  becomes  objectionable  to  permit  the  storm  water 
longer  to  find  its  way  over  the  surface.  These  drains,  serving  but 
limited  areas,  will  not  be  important  as  to  size,  and  may  usually 
be  built  as  found  necessary  without  reference  to  those  serving  other 
districts. 

But  among  the  more  populous  outlying  areas  remaining  unpro- 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


117 


vided  for,  four,  with  their  probable  main  lines  of  collection,  may  be 
briefly  noted  as  follows,  viz.: 

1.  An  area  lying  to  tlie  west  of  the  Old  York  road,  Twenty-ninth 
street  and  Maryland  avenue,  finding  an  outlet  to  Jones’  Falls  by 
way  of  Sumwalt  Eun. 

This  drains  about  575  acres  to  a  point  opposite  the  Mt.  Eoyal 
reservoir,  where  its  outlet  would  require  a  capacity,  when  two- 
thirds  full,  of  1,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

2.  An  area  draining  to  Stony  Eun  lying  west  of  the  Sumwalt 
Eun  watershed  and  east  of  Eoland  avenue  in  Hampden,  and  con¬ 
taining  about  2,100  acres,  518  of  which  lie  within  the  city  limits. 

Following  the  valley  of  Stony  Eun  this  would  discharge  into 
Jones’  Falls  opposite  Druid  Hill  Lake  with  a  capacity,  when  two- 
thirds  full,  of  2,900  cubic  feet  per  second. 

3.  An  area  draining  to  a  valley  just  north  of'  Druid  Hill  Park 
with  a  watershed  area  of  354  acres.  This  will  require  a  drain  with 
a  capacity  of  some  700  cubic  feet  per  second  when  two-tliirds  full, 
and  will  discharge  into  Jones’  Falls  near  Union  avenue. 

4.  An  area  draining  to  a  small  run  just  southeast  of  Druid  Hill 
Park,  containing  about  109  acres.  A  drain  for  this  district  will 
discharge  into  Jones’  Falls  opposite  Stony  Eun,  with  a  capacity, 
two-thirds  full,  of  about  230  cubic  feet  per  second. 

These  four  main  drains  will  furnish  outlets  for  the  drainage  from 
the  2.4  square  miles  of  well  built-up  area  lying  within  the  annexed 
district  that  are  as  yet  unprovided  for  excepting  Walbrook,  Irv¬ 
ington  and  Calverton,  which  may  drain  directly  to  Gwynn’s  Falls 
or  to  Gwynn’s  Eun. 

The  true  functions  of  the  city’s  drains  are:  1st,  to  carry  the 
storm  water  from  street  inlets  to  its  final  point  of  discharge  as 
quickly  and  directly  as  possible,  avoiding  in  this  way  its  carriage 
for  any  great  distance  over  the  surface.  2d,  to  provide  a  means 
for  such  drainage  of  the  subsoil  and  cellars  as  may  be  necessary  to 
effect  a  sanitary  condition  thereof,  a  saturated  soil  or  damp  base¬ 
ment  being  especially  favorable  to  the  dissemination  of  malarial, 
pulmonary  and  diphtheritic  troubles.  3d,  to  take  such  liquid  manu¬ 
facturing  and  other  wastes  as  may  be  permissible  without  danger 
of  deposit,  putrefaction  or  other  nuisance  while  in,  or  after  leaving, 
the  drain.  Whatever  may  be  removed  in  this  way  will  relieve  the 
sewers  of  that  duty  to  a  corresponding  extent.  Connections  for  the 
above  purposes  should  be  made  only  by  special  permission,  by  and 
under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  City. 


4  ■% 

118  REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 

On  the  other  hand,  to  ensure  a  sanitary  and  economical  operation 
of  a  system  of  storm-water  drains,  it  is  essential  that  the  admission 
thereto  of  house  sewage  or  the  overflow  from  cesspools,  the  drainage 
of  putrescible  liquors  from  slaughter-houses  or  other  establish¬ 
ments,  garbage  or  other  solid  matters  be  absolutely  prohibited.  A 
certain  amount  of  silt  or  street  washings  will  undoubtedly  find 
entrance  by  way  of  the  inlets,  but  by  a  proper  construction  and 
administration  of  these  the  amount  entering  will  be  small,  inoffen¬ 
sive  and  readily  removed. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

KENNETH  ALLEN, 

Principal  Assistant  Engineer. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


119 


LIST  OF  RAINFALLS  OF  GREAT  INTENSITY  OCCURRING 
IN  BALTIMORE  IN  RECENT  YEARS,  FROM  THE 
RECORDS  OF  THE  WEATHER  BUREAU. 


The  storms  marked  by  a  star  (*)  were  recorded  by  automatic 
gauges. 

*  i  1  T-V  I  • 


Date. 

Amount 

in 

Inches. 

Duration, 
Hrs.  Miu. 

Rate  in 
inches 
per  Hour. 

May 

21, 

1897 . 

. 57 

5 

*  6.84 

July 

21, 

1890 . 

. 05 

i 

*  6.00 

June 

16, 

1890 . 

. 10 

1 

*  6.00 

July 

17, 

1897 . 

. 80 

10 

*  4.80 

June 

16, 

189G . 

. 35 

5 

*  4.21 

Sept. 

19, 

1896 . 

. 35 

5 

*  4.20 

May 

21, 

1897 . 

. 67 

10 

*  4.02 

July 

17, 

1897 . 

.  1.00 

15 

*  4.00 

June 

16, 

1896 . 

. 45 

7 

*  3.85 

Sept. 

19, 

1896 . 

. 95 

15 

*  3.80 

May 

6, 

1894 . 

. 25 

4 

*  3.75 

July 

27, 

1896 . 

. 30 

5 

*  3.60 

July 

21, 

1896 . 

. 30 

5 

*  3.60 

April 

27, 

1890 . 

. 80 

15 

3.20 

July 

21, 

1896 . 

. 25 

5 

*  3.00 

July 

9, 

1896 . 

. 10 

2 

*  3.00 

May 

21, 

1897 . 

. 70 

15 

*  2.86 

July 

17, 

1897 . 

.  1.19 

25 

*  2.80 

Sept. 

19, 

189(5 . 

.  1.00 

22 

*  2.73 

July 

21, 

1896 . 

. 45 

10 

*  2.70 

Sept. 

8, 

1879 . 

.  1.32 

30 

2.64 

July 

7, 

1896 . 

. 41 

10 

*  2.46 

July 

27, 

1896 . 

. 38 

10 

*  2.28 

Sept. 

19, 

1896 . 

.  1.09 

31 

*  2.11 

March 

22, 

1890 . 

. 17 

5 

2.04 

August  10, 

1897 . 

. 17 

5 

*  2.04 

July 

9, 

1896 . 

. 05 

li 

*  2.00 

July 

8, 

1888 . 

. 96 

30 

1.92 

June 

23, 

1888 . 

.  1.10 

35 

1.89 

July 

7, 

1896 . 

. 50 

17 

*  1.76 

May 

21, 

1897 . 

. 72 

25 

*  1.72 

August 

21, 

1890 . 

.  1.96 

1  10 

1.68 

120 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Date. 

Amount 

Duration, 

Rate  in 

in 

Inches. 

Hrs.  Min. 

inches 
per  Hour. 

May 

6, 

1894 . 

. 40 

15 

*  1.60 

July 

22, 

1897 . 

. 21 

8 

*  1.57 

August 

10, 

1897 . 

. 52 

20 

*  1.56 

August 

22, 

1887 . 

.  1.74 

1 

10 

1.49 

July 

5, 

1895. 

.99 

40 

*  1.48 

May 

6, 

1894 . 

. 60 

25 

*  1.44 

August 

1888 . 

. 48 

20 

1,44 

August 

10, 

1897 . 

. 68 

30 

*  1.36 

July 

30, 

1889 . 

.  1.01 

45 

1.35 

August 

10, 

1873 . 

.  1.30 

1 

1.30 

July 

o, 

1896 . 

. 15 

7 

*  1.29 

June 

22, 

1892 . 

.  1.23 

1 

1.23 

July 

9, 

1896 . 

. 11 

5 

*  1.21 

July 

May 

e/ 

J  une 

21, 

1896 . 

.  1.20 

1 

*  1.20 

20, 

1889 . 

.  1.20 

1 

1.20 

23, 

1888 . 

.  1.18 

1 

1.18 

June 

4, 

1891 . 

.  1.15 

1 

1.15 

August 

5, 

1888 . 

.  1.12 

1 

1.12 

August 

10, 

1897 . 

. 79 

45 

*  1.05 

August 

8, 

1888 . 

.  1.03 

1 

1.03 

June 

8, 

1881 . 

.  1.16 

1 

10 

1.00 

July 

9, 

1896 . 

. 20 

14 

*  .86 

Sept. 

6, 

1S95 . 

2 

*  .80 

August 

30, 

1895 . 

. 78 

1 

*  .78 

May 

23, 

1894 . 

. 75 

1 

*  .75 

Sept. 

<3, 

1895 . 

.  2.20 

3 

*  .73 

August 

10, 

1897 . 

. 89 

1 

20 

*  .67 

July 

e/ 

16, 

1895 . 

. 66 

1 

*  .66 

Sept. 

19, 

1895 . 

. 61 

1 

*  .61 

July 

30, 

1896 . 

. 10 

10 

*  .60 

July 

27, 

1896 . 

. 56 

1 

*  .56 

May 

20, 

1894 . 

. 55 

1 

*  .55 

July 

9, 

1896 . 

. 16 

20 

*  .48 

Jan. 

20, 

1895 . 

. 45 

1 

*  .45 

Dec, 

2G, 

1895 . 

. 45 

1 

*  .45 

Sept.  5  and  6,  1891 . 

.  4.00 

9 

10 

.44 

June 

10, 

1896 . 

.  1.17 

Q 

43 

*  .43 

Sept. 

o, 

1895 . 

10 

40 

*  .35 

Sept. 

6, 

1895 . 

.  4.76 

16 

30 

*  .29 

FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE  121 


Date. 

.June  28,  1885  . 

August  13  and  14,  1873 . .  . 
February  5  and  6,  1896 .  . . 

July  30  and  31,  1889 . 

September  1G  and  17,  187G 

July  11,  1884 . 

July  20,  1880 . 

July  1  and  2,  1889 . 

April  25,  1889 . 

March  8  and  9,  1881 . 

October  23,  1890 . 

July  8,  1891 . 


Amount 

in 

Indies. 

Duration, 
Hrs.  Min. 

Rate  in 
inches 
per  Hour. 

4.47 

24 

.186 

4.36 

24 

.182 

3.48 

20 

.17 

4.02 

24 

.167 

3.94 

24 

.164 

3.75 

24 

.156 

3.71 

24 

.154 

3.63 

24 

.151 

3.58 

24 

.149 

3.51 

24 

.146 

23  15 

.13 

2.59 

24 

.11 

The  Monthly  Weather  lie  view  for  January,  1897,  published  by 
the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau,  contains  the  following  maximum  rates 
of  downpour  for  various  intervals  of  time  as  observed  at  Wash¬ 
ington,  I).  C.,  during  the  past  16  years: 


September  3,  1882 
September  1G,  1888 

June  27,  1881 . 

June  27,  1881 . 

June  27,  1881 . 

June  27,  1880 . 

June  10,  187G . 

June  10,  187  0 . 

June  10,  1876 . 

Julv  26,  1886 . 


Time, 

Consecutive 

Minutes. 

Rate  in 
Inches 
per  Hour 

5 

7.50 

10 

5.10 

15 

4.50 

20 

3.90 

25 

3.60 

30 

3.15 

40 

2.75 

50 

2.30 

60 

1.98 

120 

1.23 

APPENDIX  C 


REPORT  ON  SYSTEMS  OF 


EWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


FOR  THE 


CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


JOINTLY  PRESENTED  BY 

RUDOLPH  HERING  and  SAMUEL  M.  GRAY 
Consulting  Engineers 


New  York  and  Providence 
November ,  18961 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


A.  Introductory  Remarks .  125 

B.  Object  to  be  obtained .  126 

C.  General  Topography  and  Geology .  127 

D.  Population .  130 

E.  Water  Supply,  Sewage  and  Ground  Water  .  132 

F.  Run-off  from  Storms .  135 

G.  Existing  Sewers .  140 

H.  Modern  Methods  of  Sewage  Disposal .  142 

I.  Dilution . .  143 

J.  Precipitation .  151 

K.  Filtration . 157 

L.  Comparison  .  162 

M.  Methods  of  Collection  .  164 

N.  Separate  System  .  165 

O.  Principal  Sewers  and  Districts .  167 

P.  Pumping  Station  and  Discharge  Mains .  174 

Q.  Elements  of  Design  .  180 

R.  Storm  Drainage  System . 100 

S.  Sub-Drainage  System .  104 

T.  Estimates  of  Cost  of  the  Sewerage  System .  195 

U.  Recommendations  .  197 

V.  Appendix  I.  Geology  of  Baltimore  and  adjacent  Region .  199 

W.  “  II.  List  of  Rain-falls  .  204 

X.  “  III.  Capacity  of  a  few  Drains  and  the  probable  future  Run-off  209 

Y.  “  IV.  Estimates  of  Cost : 

Construction  .  209 

Maintenance  .  213 

Z.  “  V.  List  of  Plans .  210 


REPORT  OF  CONSULTING  ENGINEERS. 


New  York  and  Providence,  November,  1S9G. 

Mendes  Cohen,  Esq., 

F.  H.  Hambleton,  Esq., 

E.  L.  Bartlett,  Esq., 

Gentlemen: — In  accordance  with  your  letter  of  April  16,  1895, 
containing  an  outline  of  the  services  we  are  expected  to  render  to 
your  Commission,  in  recommending  a  plan  for  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  the  sewage  of  your  city,  together  with  its  estimated 
cost,  and  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  subject,  the  present  report 
is  herewith  respectfully  presented. 


I  Sewerage  Commission 
j  of  the  City  of  Baltimore. 


A 

INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

At  a  joint  meeting  with  yourselves,  it  was  decided  that  we  were 
to  be  at  liberty  to  consult  with  each  other  regarding  your  work, 
but  that  we  should  give  to  you  our  individual  opinions  concerning 
our  recommendations. 

Since  starting  upon  our  labors,  such  consultations  have  been 
frequent  and  a  number  of  visits  to  Baltimore  have  been  made, 
jointly  and  separately.  To  aid  us  in  doing  our  work,  you  have  fur¬ 
nished  each  of  us  copies  of  necessary  maps,  reports,  and  the  results 
of  surveys  and  borings,  made  at  our  request;  and  in  numerous 
conversations  on  the  subject  you  have  given  us  much  information 
on  local  questions. 

Personal  examinations  of  all  the  important  parts  of  the  territory 
have  been  made,  either  alone  or  with  yourselves,  or  with  Mr. 
Kenneth  Allen,  your  assistant. 

The  lines  of  the  possible  main  interceptors  have  been  examined; 
also  the  territory  lying  between  the  Back  Biver  and  the  Patapsco 
River,  with  reference  to  clarifying  the  sewage  and  also  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  discharging  it  into  Chesapeake  Bay  off  North  Point;  also 


126 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


the  land  lying  north  and  east  of  Back  River;  also  the  land  lying 
south  of  Curtis  Bay,  as  far  as  Magothy  River,  with  reference 
to  treating  the  sewage  by  filtration. 

We  have  understood  it  to  be  the  desire  of  your  Commission  to 
have  an  exhaustive  enquiry  made  regarding  the  whole  subject^  so 
far  as  the  general  features  of  the  problem  are  concerned,  with  a 
view  to  establish  a  comprehensive  system  of  sewerage  and  drainage 
which  will  answer,  practically,  for  all  time. 

Such  a  system  you  deshed  to  be  fully  indicated  in  general  out¬ 
line,  with  its  main  features,  so  that  it  could  be  well  compre¬ 
hended,  and  its  approximate  cost  ascertained. 

Any  detailed  features,  dependent  upon  minor  conditions,  and 
allowing  some  variations  to  be  made  when  adapted  to  local  require¬ 
ments,  must  be  given  writh  the  understanding  that  they  should  be 
so  adapted,  when  it  is  decided  to  construct  the  works. 

The  assumptions  regarding  the  requirements  of  the  work  have 
been  liberal,  but  have  been  approximate  only,  which  we  consider 
sufficient  for  the  present  purpose.  Later,  when  the  works  are  to 
be  constructed,  the  assumptions  will  need  adjusting,  and  the  many 
details  will  need  to  be  carefully  worked  out. 

Enquiry  has  been  made  with  reference  to  these  requirements,  as 
presented  to  us,  and  the  results  are  set  forth  in  what  follows: 


B 

OBJECT  TO  BE  OBTAINED. 

The  necessity  of  a  well-devised  system  of  modern  sewerage  for 
a  city  of  such  magnitude  and  importance  as  Baltimore,  requires 
no  comment  from  us.  It  may  be  well  to  state,  however,  that  the 
success  of  a  system  of  sewerage  depends,  in  a  great  measure,  upon 
the  carefulness  with  which  it  is  designed  and  built,  and  upon  the 
faithfulness  with  which  the  works  are  managed  when  in  operation. 

One  advantage  of  a  modern  system  of  sewerage  consists  in  re¬ 
moving  all  foul  liquids  in  a  proper  manner  and  preventing  them 
from  running  across  the  sidewalks  and  along  the  street  gutters,  as 
at  present  is  customary  in  your  city.  The  street  gutters  should 
be  kept  for  the  removal  of  rain-water  only.  Another  advantage 
is,  that  all  privies  can  be  abolished  and  water-closets  substituted. 
It  is  important  that  cesspools,  as  soon  as  superseded  by  sewers, 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


127 


should  be  thoroughly  cleaned  and  thereafter  immediately  filled 
with  clean  material. 

The  city  is  continually  extending  its  built-up  area,  the  population 
is  increasing,  and  the  demands  for  proper  sewerage  are  becoming 
greater.  When  considering  this  question,  it  is  therefore  necessary 
to  look  into  the  future  far  enough  to  ensure  that  the  system  when 
complete  wall  be  not  only  sufficient  for  the  demands  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  day,  but  will  have  such  surplus  capacity  as  to  answer 
practically  for  all  time,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  territory  which 
the  system  is  intended  to  cover. 

It  may  be  stated,  that  works  of  such  importance  as  these,  for 
the  execution  of  which  necessarily  skill  of  a  high  order  will  be 
required,  and  which  are  to  be  built,  practically  as  a  whole,  may  be 
designed  with  a  smaller  allowance  for  contingencies,  such 
as  possible  improper  arrangements  of  details  and  improper  work¬ 
manship,  than  if  the  work  were  to  be  done  unsystematically,  in 
small  patches,  at  different  times  and  by  different  officers.  The 
economy,  also,  of  building  so  large  a  work  within  a  short  time,  and 
under  the  same  management,  will  likewise  be  apparent. 

It  is  evident  that  the  character  of  the  works  recommended  for 
sewerage  and  drainage  depends  first,  upon  the  topographical  and 
geological  conditions  of  the  territory;  secondly,  upon  the  sewers 
and  drains  already  existing,  and  thirdly,  upon  the  methods  avail¬ 
able  for  disposing  of  the  sewage.  To  these  matters,  therefore, 
attention  is  now  directed. 


c 

GENERAL  TOPOGRAPHY  AND  GEOLOGY'. 

The  City  of  Baltimore  lies  near  the  head  of  the  Patapsco  River, 
which,  about  ten  miles  below  the  city,  discharges  into  the  Chesa¬ 
peake  Bay.  The  River  has  two  branches,  the  Northwest  and  Mid¬ 
dle  Branch,  which  extend  several  miles  into  the  territory  of  the 
city,  the  main  river  passing  westerly  outside  of  the  city.  The  main 
harbor,  called  the  Basin,  is  situated  at  the  head  of  the  Northwest 
Branch.  It  is  comparatively  narrow  and  extends  almost  to  the 
heart  of  the  business  districts. 

The  topography  of  the  city  itself  is  flat  near  the  water,  and 
rises  somewhat  rapidly  towards  the  north  and  west,  so  that  the 


128 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


natural  drainage  of  the  city  is  good.  The  highest  points  within 
the  city  limits  are  situated  in  the  northwest  corner,  where  some 
territory  rises  above  four  hundred  feet.  The  northeastern  part 
of  the  city  is  not  as  high  and  the  ground  rises  only  to  about  three 
hundred  feet  above  tidewater.  In  the  southwest  corner  of  the 
city  it  also  rises  to  about  three  hundred  feet.  The  total  area  of 
the  city,  including  the  water  areas,  is  32.21  square  miles;  excluding 
them,  it  is  29.51  square  miles. 

Several  watercourses  run  through  it.  Jones’  Falls,  which  is 
quite  a  stream,  passes  through  the  city  near  its  centre,  and  dis¬ 
charges  into  the  Northwest  Branch.  Gwynn’s  Falls,  likewise  a 
large  watercourse,  passes  through  the  western  part  of  the  city, 
and  discharges  into  the  Middle  Branch.  Smaller  streams,  such  as 
Gwynn’s  Run  in  the  west,  and  Harford  Run,  Jenkins’  Run  and 
Stony  Run  in  the  north  and  east,  and  still  others,  break  up  the 
territory  into  numerous  natural  drainage  areas,  which  eventually 
discharge  into  the  two  branches  of  the  Patapsco  River. 

In  the  northeastern  corner  of  your  city,  there  remains  a  territory 
which  does  not  drain  into  this  river,  but  into  Herring  Run,  and 
thence  into  the  Back  River.  This  territory  therefore  must  receive 
a  special  consideration  regarding  its  sewerage  and  drainage. 

The  excellent  topographical  survey  of  your  city,  prepared  under 
the  direction  of  Col.  H.  T.  Douglas,  and  the  model  made  in  your 
office,  very  clearly  show  the  physical  characteristics  of  the  territory. 

In  the  suburbs  there  are  numerous  park  areas  which  will  remain 
uninhabited,  and  for  which,  practically,  no  provision  need  be  made 
for  sewage  removal.  These  park  areas,  also,  absorb  a  much  larger 
proportion  of  the  rainfall  than  do  the  built-up  parts  of  the  city. 

The  built-up  territory  is  extending  towards  the  higher  ground 
in  all  directions,  but  mainly  towards  the  north,  and  it  is  in  this 
direction  where  also  the  greatest  allowance  must  be  made  for 
future  increase  in  the  quantity  of  sewage  and  also  for  the  run-off 
from  heavy  storms. 

With  reference  to  the  subject  of  final  sewage  disposal,  there  is 
the  large  mass  of  water  of  the  lower  Patapsco  River  and  Chesa¬ 
peake  Bay,  into  which  the  foul  water  might  be  discharged  and 
diluted,  and  also  the  territory  lying  on  each  side  of  the  river  below 
the  city,  as  Patapsco  Neck,  Marley  Neck,  etc.,  upon  which  it  was 
thought  the  sewage  might  be  purified. 

A  trip  was  made  down  the  river  into  the  Bay,  and  into  Back 
River,  in  order  to  examine  the  surface  conditions  at  the  shores  and 
the  general  currents  of  the  water. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


129 


Patapsco  Neck  was  carefully  examined  with  reference  to  a  possi¬ 
ble  treatment  of  sewage  upon  land,  and  also  with  reference  to 
carrying  an  outfall  sewer  from  the  city  near  North  Point.  The 
special  surveys  and  topographical  maps  made  by  Mr.  Allen,  show 
the  character  of  this  territory.  Borings  made  in  the  lower  portions 
of  Patapsco  Neck  have  indicated  to  us  the  character  of  its  soil. 

We  also  examined  some  of  the  territory  on  Back  River  Neck,  in 
order  to  discover  whether  it  was  available  for  sewage  treatment. 

On  the  southwestern  shore  of  Patapsco  River,  the  territory  was 
examined  as  far  south  as  Magothy  River,  likewise  with  reference 
to  the  question  of  sewage  disposal.  A  large  number  of  borings 
five  feet  deep  were  made  by  Mr.  Allen,  showing  the  nature  of  that 
portion  of  the  territory  examined,  which  lies  nearest  the  city.  It 
was  considered  unnecessary,  at  present,  to  make  closer  examina¬ 
tions  at  more  distant  points,  because  the  actual  nature  of  the 
ground  was  generally  apparent  on  the  surface. 

Hydrographic  observations  in  the  River  and  Bay  were  not  made, 
because  it  appeared  to  be  unnecessary  to  go  to  the  expense  of  such 
observations  in  order  to  discuss  the  question  of  dilution. 

The  geological  character  of  the  ground,  on  which  the  city  and  its 
suburbs  are  located,  has  a  bearing  upon  the  construction  of  the 
sewers  in  the  city,  many  of  which  will  be  deep;  upon  the  disposal 
of  sewage  on  land;  upon  the  absorption  of  rain-water  and  its  slow 
discharge  into  the  streams  by  percolation;  and  also  upon  the 
present  use  of  cesspools,  into  which  foul  liquids  are  discharged. 

The  character  of  the  ground  near  the  surface  is  generally  clay, 
sand  and  gravel.  Hence,  excavations  for  sewerage  purposes  will 
not  be  unusually  expensive.  In  the  northern  and  western  part  of 
the  city,  and  particularly  in  those  sections  which  have  not  yet  been 
built  up,  there  will  be  some  rock  excavation.  Rock  crops  out  at 
the  bottom  of  Jones’  Falls  above  Eager  street  and  also  in  the  valleys 
of  G wynn’s  Run  and  Gwynn’s  Falls. 

The  territory  of  Patapsco  Neck  is  largely  covered  with  timber, 
and  the  soil  consists  mostly  of  loam,  with  occasional  pockets  of 
gravel  and  sand.  In  the  southern  portion  of  the  Neck  there  is  more 
sand  than  in  the  northern  portion,  but  it  is  largely  mixed  with 
clay,  and,  therefore,  its  porosity  is  much  decreased. 

The  soil  near  the  surface  of  Back  River  Neck  is  quite  similar,  so 
far  as  an  examination  of  the  surface  could  determine.  No  extensive 
areas  of  sand  or  gravel  are  found  in  the  higher  territory  northwest 
of  these  two  necks.  The  soil  immediately  southwest  of  the  city 


130 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


is  likewise  mostly  clay  and  loam,  as  far  as  Curtis  Bay.  At  this 
latitude,  however,  the  clay  strata  begin  to  be  covered  with  sand 
wliich  is  more  or  less  free  from  the  admixture  of  clay. 

Going  in  a  southerly  direction,  the  sand  layers  increase  in  thick¬ 
ness  and  in  freedom  from  such  admixture  at  least  as  far  as  Tick 
Neck,  where  there  are  large  areas  of  almost  pure  sand  at  the 
surface. 

The  ground  on  both  sides  of  Furnace  Creek  and  its  branches, 
while  showing  more  or  less  sand  a  short  distance  below  the  surface, 
is  covered  with  a  layer  of  soil,  in  which  vegetation  flourishes. 

A  close  reconnaissance  of  these  sandy  areas  was  made  by  Mr. 
Allen,  and  a  map  showing  the  topography  has  been  prepared  by 
him. 

We  are  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Prof.  Wm.  Bullock  Clark, 
State  Geologist,  for  a  brief  report  on  the  geology  of  the  site  of 
Baltimore,  and  of  the  region  adjacent  to  the  Lower  Patapsco  River, 
and  present  the  same  in  the  Appendix  to  this  report. 


D 

POPULATION. 

In  designing  a  system  of  sewers,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  for  it 
a  capacity  sufficient  to  answer  not  only  the  present,  but  also  the 
future  requirements  of  the  population.  In  most  cities  there  are 
certain  parts  which  have  already  received  their  probable  ultimate 
development,  so  far  as  density  of  population  is  concerned. 

Cities  usually  grow  more  by  adding  to  their  territory  than  by 
increasing  the  population  within  the  already  built-up  sections.  The 
proposed  system  of  sewers  should  therefore  be  capable  of  exten¬ 
sion  into  all  directions  which  will  eventually  be  built  up. 


POPULATION  OF  BALTIMORE  BY  WARDS. 


Ward. 

Area 

Population  in  1896. 

Estimated  Population. 

in  acres. 

Total. 

Per  acre. 

Total. 

Per  acre. 

1  .... 

595.2 

29,150 

49 

31,000 

52 

2  .... 

249.G 

18,520 

74 

19,000 

76 

3  .... 

153.6 

19,310 

126 

21,000 

137 

4  .... 

153.6 

17,750 

116 

20,500 

133 

5 _ 

140.8 

18,740 

133 

20,500 

146 

FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


131 


Ward. 

Area 

Population  in  1896. 

Estimated  Population. 

in  acres. 

Total. 

Per  acre. 

Total. 

Per  acre. 

(i  .... 

1,024.0 

37,500 

37 

81,000 

79 

7  .... 

326.4 

37,300 

114 

38,000 

116 

8  .... 

480.0 

30,300 

63 

31,000 

65 

9  .... 

332.8 

19,060 

57 

30,000 

90 

10  ...  : 

136.0 

19,550 

144 

20,500 

151 

11  .... 

204.8 

24,550 

120 

25,500 

124 

12  .... 

441.6 

29,930 

68 

36,500 

83 

13  .... 

172.8 

18,190 

105 

22,500 

130 

14  .... 

166.4 

21,870 

131 

22,500 

135 

15  .... 

172.8 

17,800 

103 

21,000 

122 

16  .... 

134.4 

17,820 

133 

18,500 

138 

17  .... 

1,222.4 

34,190 

28 

91,500 

75 

18  .... 

1,120.0 

35,920 

32 

70,500 

63 

19  .... 

480.0 

34,140 

71 

38,500 

80 

20  .... 

307.2 

28,360 

92 

31,000 

101 

21  .... 

6,982.4 

28,770 

4 

108,500 

16 

22  .... 

3,904.0 

36,230 

9 

152,500 

39 

East  of  city  limits, 

48,500 

574,950  1,000,000 


In  order  to  obtain  an  estimate  of  the  present  density  of  popula¬ 
tion,  and  in  order  to  make  an  estimate  of  the  future  density,  the 
above  table  has  been  prepared. 

The  present  population,  the  areas  in  acres,  also  the  density,  are 
given  for  each  ward.  The  two  last  columns  give  the  estimated 
population  and  its  relative  density  when  there  are  one  million 
inhabitants.  Such  a  population,  in  consultation  with  yourselves,  it 
was  thought  proper  to  allow  for  when  proportioning  the  capacity 
of  the  sewerage  system. 

It  may  be  added  that  an  increase  of  population  beyond  the  as¬ 
sumed  figure  will  not  require  an  enlargement  of  the  sewers,  now 
recommended  to  you.  The  greater  population  will  occupy  addi¬ 
tional  territory  and  therefore  require  more  sewers;  perhaps,  also, 
an  additional  intercepting  sewer.  This  requirement  has  been  given 
due  consideration,  and  it  will  be  practicable,  in  the  future,  to  build 
other  sewers,  in  order  to  relieve  any  surcharge  of  those  already 
existing,  and  at  the  same  time,  form  a  proper  part  of  the  entire 
system.  In  other  words,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  rebuild  or  cause 


132 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


to  be  useless  any  essential  and  material  part  of  the  work  now 
proposed. 

To  indicate  the  assumed  distribution  of  the  population,  and 
thereby  to  make  it  convenient  to  ascertain  the  population  on  every 
area  contributing  to  a  given  sewer,  a  population  map  was  con¬ 
structed  by  placing  a  red  dot  at  what  was  assumed  to  be  the  centre 
of  each  five  hundred  of  the  prospective  population.  By  counting 
the  dots  in  each  sewerage  district,  we  determined  the  quantity  of 
sewage  to  be  expected  therefrom. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  the  built-up  parts  of  the  city  there  is 
no  very  large  difference  in  the  density  of  population.  We  have 
assumed  that  this  characteristic  will  generally  be  retained,  although 
it  is  true  that  in  the  business  centres  of  our  large  American  cities 
the  “  day  population  ”  is  increasing  to  very  large  numbers.  We 
think  that  a  suitable  allowance  in  the  capacity  of  the  lateral  sewers 
will  provide  for  this  fact. 


E 

WATER  SUPPLY,  SEWAGE  AND  GROUND  WATER. 

The  present  population  of  the  city  is  about  575,000.  The  greatest 
consumption  of  water  recorded  by  the  City  Water  Department  is 
about  72,000,000  gallons  per  day.  As  the  city  water  works  supplies 
a  small  population  in  the  Highlandtown  and  Canton  District  east 
of  the  city  limits,  the  present  consumption  of  water  averages  only 
about  120  gallons  per  head  of  the  total  population  in  the  districts 
where  city  water  pipes  are  laid.  At  this  average  rate  the  total 
consumption  of  water  of  one  million  inhabitants  would  be  about 
120,000,000  gallons  per  day. 

The  proposed  low  level  system  of  sewers  of  the  filtration  project 
will  collect  sewage  from  an  area  that  is  practically  identical  with 
that  covered  by  the  proposed  Low  Service  and  Middle  Service  Dis¬ 
tricts,  recommended  in  the  Report  to  the  Water  Commissioners  and 
recently  adopted.  From  the  data  given  in  that  report  it  is  esti¬ 
mated  that  the  maximum  consumption  of  water  in  these  two  Dis¬ 
tricts  will  be  about  74,G50,000  gallons  per  day  for  a  population  of 
about  560,000,  at  the  time  when  the  city  will  have  one  million 
inhabitants.  This  gives  an  average  consumption  of  about  133 
gallons  per  head. 

The  proposed  high  level  system  of  sewers  for  the  filtration  project 


FOK  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


133 


will  collect  the  sewage  from  all  the  remainder  of  the  city’s  area, 
which  is  practically  identical  with  the  area  covered  by  the  proposed 
High  Service  and  Upper  Service  Districts,  as  rearranged  in  the 
report  above  mentioned.  From  the  data  given  therein  it  is  esti¬ 
mated  that  the  maximum  consumption  of  water  in  these  two  Dis¬ 
tricts  will  be  about  46,000,000  gallons  per  day  for  a  population  of 
about  440,000  when  the  city  has  one  million  inhabitants.  This 
gives  an  average  consumption  of  about  105  gallons  per  head  per 
day. 

The  low  level  system  of  the  dilution  project  collects  sewage  from 
an  area  that  is  practically  identical  with  the  proposed  Low  Service 
District,  and  the  high  level  system  from  an  area  which  is  practi¬ 
cally  identical  with  the  proposed  Middle,  High  and  Upper  Service 
Districts.  Again,  from  the  data  given  in  the  above  mentioned 
report,  there  is  an  average  daily  consumption  in  the  former  of 
about  140  gallons  per  head  and  in  the  latter  of  about  112  gallons 
per  head  per  day. 

The  proposed  increase  of  pressure  of  water  throughout  the  system 
will  surely  tend  to  increase  the  consumption,  and  in  the  absence  of 
restrictive  measures  against  wastefulness  it  cannot  be  expected  to 
be  kept  within  reasonable  bounds. 

Irrespective  of  the  expense  of  furnishing  an  excessive  amount  of 
water  to  your  population,  it  will  be  desirable  in  the  future  to  adopt 
effective  measures  for  the  prevention  of  waste,  because  the  water 
will  have  to  be  dealt  with  a  second  time,  namely,  as  sewage.  A 
larger  consumption  than  necessary  will  not  only  increase  the  size 
required  for  all  of  the  sewers  and  force  mains,  but  the  sewage  will 
have  to  be  pumped  to  a  considerable  height,  and  all  of  it  subjected 
to  a  process  of  purification. 

We  have  made  a  provision  for  150  gallons  per  head  of  population 
per  day  to  reach  the  intercepting  and  outfall  sewers  as  sewage,  and 
we  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  amount  is  both  reasonable  and 
sufficient.  An  increase  beyond  the  same  would  be  due  to  waste, 
which  should  be  and  can  be  prevented.  Or,  it  would  be  due  to  the 
use  of  water,  perhaps  for  power  and  other  similar  purposes,  which 
would  not  cause  it  to  be  fouled.  Therefore  it  does  not  require  to 
be  discharged  into  sewers  and  delivered  at  the  purification  works, 
but  can  and  should  be  discharged  into  the  drains  provided  for  the 
removal  of  rain-water. 

The  use  of  water  is  not  uniform  throughout  the  twenty -four  hours 
of  the  day.  We  find  its  greatest  use  to  be  during  the  forenoon  and 
its  least  use  to  be  during  the  small  hours  of  the  night. 


134 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


For  District  main  and  branch  sewers  the  maximum  flow  may 
rise  to  double  the  average,  on  account  of  the  hilly  territory  and 
rapid  collection.  For  the  intercepting  and  outfall  sewers  we  have 
allowed  a  maximum  flow  equal  to  fifty  per  cent,  greater  than  the 
average. 

Sewage  consists  of  the  waste  or  refuse  water  from  buildings  after 
it  has  served  the  general  purposes  of  cleansing,  and  been  fouled  by 
the  discharges  from  bath-rooms,  water-closets,  urinals,  kitchens, 
laundries,  sculleries,  stables,  factories,  etc. 

Rain-water  flowing  off  from  streets  with  heavy  traffic  is  some¬ 
times  as  foul  as  domestic  sewage.  But  as  efficient  street  cleaning 
will  prevent  an  objectionable  result,  we  do  not  consider  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  treat  it  as  being  equally  foul,  nor  as  becoming  objectionable 
when  entering  the  drains,  the  rivers  and  the  harbor. 

When  a  water  supply  is  liberal,  the  appearance  of  sewage  is  like 
dirty  water.  It  consists  of  about  998  parts  of  water,  about  one  part 
of  organic  matter,  and  perhaps  one  part  of  mineral  matter.  The 
organic  matter  contained  in  the  sewage  is  that  which  by  putrefac¬ 
tion  causes  the  subsequent  nuisance. 

At  first  it  has  a  very  slight  odor,  resembling  that  of  laundry 
water,  on  such  days  when  much  washing  is  done,  and  on  other  days 
it  generally  has  the  odor  of  an  uncleaned  kitchen  sink. 

In  a  new  system  of  sewers,  properly  built  and  well  cleaned,  we 
have  repeatedly  detected  these  odors,  as  described,  at  the  outfall. 
After  sewers  have  been  used  for  some  time,  and  particularly  where 
they  are  not  carefully  cleaned,  a  foul  odor  is  detected,  and  it  in¬ 
creases  in  proportion  to  the  neglect  in  the  care  of  the  system. 
Where  old  sewers,  that  have  been  long  in  use  anci  are  improperly 
constructed,  or  where  overflowing  cesspools  are  connected  with  a 
new  system,  the  odor  at  once  becomes  foul,  because  they  contain 
much  putrefying  matter  which  readily  affects  the  condition  of  the 
passing  fresh  sewage. 

Although  an  effort  should  be  made  to  prevent  ground  water  or 
sub-soil  water  from  entering  the  sewers,  we  have  made  an  allow¬ 
ance  for  the  infiltration  of  100,000  gallons  per  day  per  square  mile 
of  territory.  The  ground  water  of  the  low  districts  of  the  city 
should  be  disposed  of  by  other  channels,  as  indicated  below. 

With  the  maximum  flow  of  sewage  and  ground  water,  as  thus 
estimated,  we  have  assumed  that  the  intercepting  sewers  should 
run  half  full,  and  the  outfall  sewer  on  Patapsco  Neck  two-thirds 
full.  The  force  mains  delivering  the  sewage  at  the  filtration  fields 
must  of  course  run  full  at  all  times. 


FOB  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


135 


While  we  believe  that  100,000  gallons  of  ground  water  per  square 
mile  per  day  is  sufficient  allowance  throughout  the  greater  part  of 
the  city,  we  do  not  think  it  is  sufficient  in  the  low  parts  of  the  city 
near  the  harbor.  The  reason  for  assuming  a  larger  quantity  in 
this  locality  is  the  fact  that  much  of  the  ground  water  in  the  higher 
parts  of  the  city  will  descend  below  the  levels  of  the  sewers  and 
drains  and  reappear  at  the  level  of  the  intercepting  sewers  in  the 
lower  parts  of  the  city.  We  have  estimated  that  means  should 
be  provided  at  these  sewers  for  removing  ground  water  to  the  extent 
of  1,200  gallons  per  day  per  acre,  or  about  750,000  gallons  per 
square  mile. 


F 

RUN  OFF  FROM  STORMS. 

In  designing  drainage  works  it  is  of  greatest  importance  to 
ascertain  the  quantity  of  water  per  unit  of  surface,  for  the  removal 
of  which  provision  should  be  made. 

Underestimating  this  quantity  and  thereby  making  the  sewers, 
drains  or  other  channels  too  small,  would  result  in  flooding  streets 
and  cellars,  and  damage  to  property.  It  must  therefore  be  avoided. 
On  the  other  hand,  too  great  an  allowance  should  not  be  made,  as 
the  sizes  of  the  drains  and  other  structures,  and  consequently  their 
cost,  would  be  unnecessarily  increased.  The  problem  requires  that 
a  proper  medium  be  maintained  between  the  two  extremes. 

The  amount  of  rain-water  for  which  provision  should  usually  be 
made  has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  determined,  because  it  varies 
with  a  number  of  conditions,  some  of  which  can  be  expressed  by  a 
formula,  while  others  must  depend  upon  judgment,  and  because  as 
yet  an  insufficient  number  of  observations  have  been  made  on  the 
subject  to  know  the  precise  relationship  of  the  factors. 

We  may  say  that  the  run-off  varies  with  the  amount  of  rainfall, 
and  also  with  the  slope,  imperviousness,  dryness,  shape  and  extent 
of  the  area. 

Observations  are  being  made  on  the  run-off  in  the  City  of  Wash¬ 
ington  by  the  Engineer  Commissioners  of  the  District,  and  informa¬ 
tion,  valuable  also  for  Baltimore,  will  no  doubt  be  there  obtained 
in  time.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  the  present  purpose  to  analyze 
some  of  the  usual  formulae  that  have  been  proposed,  and,  as  they 
are  fairly  applicable  to  Baltimore,  to  apply  them  intelligently  until 
better  results  are  available. 


136 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  formulae  discussed  below  are  those  of  Hawksley,  Adams, 
Burkli- Ziegler,  McMath,  and  one  deduced  from  diagrams  prepared 
for  the  Department  of  Public  Works  of  New  York,  in  1889. 

They  are  as  follows: 

Let  Q  —  Run-off  in  cubic  feet  per  second. 

r  =  Maximum  rate  of  rainfall  in  inches  per  hour. 

c  —  A  coefficient  dependent  mainly  on  the  character  of  the 
surface. 

A  —  Drainage  area  in  acres. 

A  ==  Average  slope  of  area  per  1,000  feet  measured  along 
the  flow  lines. 

Then,  according  to  : 

Hawksley,  Q  =  c  */r*A3S 

for  r  —  1  ;  cr  =  0.70 

Adams,  Q  =  c  s/r  .  \f Jj  .  \fS~ 

for  r  =  1 ;  cr  —  0.57 

Burkli -Ziegler,  Q  =  cr 

for  r—  2.75 ;  cyr  2.0625  for  paved  and 

built-up  areas. 
c2r  =  1.705  for  average  city 

areas. 

c3r  —  0.8525  for  rural  areas. 

McMath  (for  St.  Louis),  Q  =  cr  \ZA*  JT 

for  r  =  2.75;  cr  =.  2.0625. 

New  York  Diagrams,  Q  =  crA  85  S  *27 

Ci r  —  1.64  for  completely 

built-up  areas. 
c2r  =z  1.39  for  well  built-up  areas. 
c3r  —  1.02  for  suburban  areas. 


( a )  Maximum  Rate  of  Rainfall. 

The  most  important  factor  is,  of  course,  the  greatest  rate  of  rain¬ 
fall.  It  is  necessary  to  have  exact  observations  not  only  concerning 
large  storms,  but  also  concerning  those  which  have  the  greatest 
intensity. 

The  records  of  a  number  of  excessive  storms,  which  have  occurred 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


137 


> 


during  the  past  twenty-five  years  or  more  at  several  places  in  the 
State  of  Maryland,  and  also  in  the  cities  of  Washington  and  Phila¬ 
delphia,  have  been  extracted  from  “  The  Weather  Review  ”  pub¬ 
lished  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture  (formerly  by  the  Signal 
Service  of  the  War  Department),  and  are  given  in  the  Appendix. 

Among  these  storms  there  are  a  number  which  were  recorded 
by  automatic  gaugings  and  which  for  that  reason  are  more  useful 
in  the  present  instance  than  the  others.  Such  records  have  been 
plotted  on  the  diagram  contained  on  Plate  N,.  the  lesser  storms 
being  omitted  as  unnecessary.  The  ordinates  represent  the  rate  of 
rainfall  in  inches  per  hour,  and  the  abscissas  the  duration  of  this 
rate  in  hours  and  minutes.  The  locations  and  dates  of  those  storms 
which  have  exceptionally  great  rates  and  durations,  are  indicated 
outside  of  a  dotted  curve.  The  greatest  storms  have  been  designated 
specially,  regarding  place  and  date  of  occurrence. 

From  a  study  of  these  records  it  appears  that  the  drains  should 
be  proportioned  for  a  run-off  from  storms  having  a  rate  of  4  inches 
per  hour. 

In  New  York  City  a  rainfall  of  one  inch  in  10  minutes  or  at  the 
rate  of  six  inches  per  hour,  has  occasionally  been  recorded,  and 
this  rate  may  be  used  for  proportioning  the  drains  from  private 
premises  and  from  short  blocks. 

The  formulae  above  mentioned  assume  the  run-off  to  vary  with 
the  rainfall,  as  follows: 

All  factors,  excepting  the  run-off  and  rainfall,  are  assumed  in 
this  comparison  to  be  constant. 

Hawksley,  Q 

Adams,  Q 

Burkli-Zieglcr,  Q 

McMath,  Q 

New  York  Diagrams,  Q 

There  is  hardly  a  question  that,  all  other  factors  being  equal, 
the  run-off  from  such  small  areas  as  are  considered  for  city  drain¬ 
age,  should  vary  directly  with  the  rainfall  in  all  cases  of  heavy 
storms,  and  also  for  short  periods  if  absorption  and  evaporation 
can  be  neglected.  Therefore,  as  these  assumptions  can  generally 
be  made  for  city  work,  the  three  latter  formulae  which  have  a  direct 
variation  with  the  rainfall  are  preferred. 


=  constant  .r75 
=  constant  .r50 
=  constant  .r 
=  constant  Q  varies  directly  with  r. 
=  constant  .r 


138 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


( b )  Slope. 

When  the  maximum  rate  of  fall  does  not  cease  before  the  run-off 
from  the  entire  area  has  reached  its  lowest  point,  then  for  this 
area  the  rnn-off  will  be  independent  of  the  slope.  But  when  the 
maximum  rate  ceases  before  this  takes  place,  the  slope  will  have  a 
decided  influence  upon  the  quantity  of  water  accumulated. 

The  greater  the  slope  of  the  surface,  that  is,  the  steeper  the 
territory,  the  more  rapidly  will  the  water  ran  off  and  accumulate 
along  the  lowest  lines. 

It  is  not  practicable  at  this  time  to  state  how  large  the  area 
must  be  before  the  variation  of  the  slope  should  be  considered.  It 
depends  upon  the  maximum  rate  of  rainfall,  upon  the  steepness 
of  the  area  and  upon  other  local  conditions.  For  the  present  pur¬ 
pose  the  question  will  be  neglected,  as  the  information  regarding 
it  is  still  too  indefinite. 

Assuming,  generally  speaking,  that  the  run-off  increases  with 
the  slope,  what  is  the  ratio  between  these  two  quantities? 

If  all  factors  excepting  the  run-off  and  slope  are  assumed  to  be 
constant,  then  the  above  mentioned  formulae  exhibit  the  run-off 
to  vary  with  the  slope  in  the  following  ratios : 

Hawksley, 

Adams, 

Burkli-Ziegler, 

McMath, 

New  York  Diagrams, 

The  exponent  to  the  value  S,  exhibiting  the  ratio,  does  not  show 
any  great  difference,  excepting  in  the  formula  of  Adams.  The 
latter  has  the  smallest  exponent  and  the  New  York  Diagram  the 
largest;  the  latter,  therefore,  indicates  a  greater  variation  due  to 
the  slope  that  the  other  formulae. 

( c )  Imperviousness  and  Dryness. 

These  two  characteristics  of  the  surface  are  represented  in  the 
above  formulae  by  a  coefficient  c ,  which  must  vary  with  the  degree 
of  imperviousness  and  dryness  of  the  surface.  Open  ground,  such 
as  fields,  parks  and  gardens,  is  comparatively  pervious,  while  roofs 
and  pavements  are  impervious.  A  wet  soil  will  be  less  pervious 
to  a  sudden  heavy  rainfall  than  a  dry  one.  Dry  and  hot  street 


Q  —  constant  A25 
Q—  constant  S'm 
Q  —  constant  S-25 
Q  —  constant  S'20 
Q  —  constant  S‘27 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


139 


and  roof  surfaces  will  cause  more  evaporation  than  wet  and  cool 
ones.  But  this  variation  is  of  no  practical  importance  in  the 
present  case,  as,  by  the  time  the  maximum  rate  of  rainfall  occurs, 
all  surfaces  are  thoroughly  wet  and  cool. 

It  is  assumed  in  the  above  formulae  that  c  varies  directly  with 
the  degree  of  imperviousness,  that  it  is  constant  for  each  degree, 
and  that  therefore  the  run-off  Q  varies  directly  with  c. 

( d )  Shape  of  Area. 

None  of  the  formulae  mentioned  take  any  account  of  the  shape 
of  the  area,  although  it  must  necessarily  affect  the  quantity  of 
run-off.  A  violent  and  short  rainfall  upon  a  long  and  narrow  area 
produces  a  smaller  run-off  at  a  given  point,  other  things  being 
equal,  than  upon  a  short  and  broad  area.  Still,  for  city  drainage 
areas,  which  are  comparatively  small,  this  variation  is  not  of  mate¬ 
rial  consequence,  and  has  therefore  not  been  considered.  Owing 
to  the  lack  of  data,  it  is  hardlv  worth  while  to  consider  it  at  all 
in  your  case. 


( e )  Extent  of  Area. 

The  larger  the  area,  the  greater  is  the  total  run-off.  But,  the 
larger  the  area,  the  smaller  is  the  run-off  per  unit  of  area,  as  for 
instance  per  acre.  This  variation  is  important  and  demonstrates 
that  a  drain  taking  the  water  from  a  large  area,  say  100  acres,  does 
not  require  to  have  ten  times  the  capacity  of  one  taking  the  water 
from  only  10  acres. 

Assuming  all  the  factors,  excepting  the  run-off  and  drainage  area, 
as  being  constant,  then  the  above  formulae  give  the  following- 
values  : 


Hawksley, 

Adams, 

Burkli-Ziegler, 

McMatli, 

New  York  Diagrams, 


Q  —  constant  A-75 
Q  =  constant  A-833 
Q  —  constant  A*73 
Q  - z  constant  A,8° 
Q  —  constant  A-83 


As  regards  the  effect  of  the  extent  of  the  area  upon  the  run-off, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  coefficient  does  not  indicate  any  great 
difference  between  these  formulae. 


140 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


(f)  Conclusion. 

All  the  above  formulae  have  the  form 

Q  =  cr°AmSn 

From  what  was  said  above,  the  only  formulae  giving  an  expo¬ 
nential  value  for  r  other  than  unity  are  those  of  Hawksley  and 
Adams,  and  it  is  as  well  to  ignore  such  variation.  Therefore  the 
preferred  formulae  have  the  form 

Q  =  crAmSn 

As  they  are  practically  derived  independently  of  a  knowledge  of  the 
exact  maximum  rainfall,  we  may  substitute  for  cr  the  value  of  (7, 
and  therefore  write 

Q  =  C  AmSn 

In  the  Burkli-Ziegler  formula  we  may  therefore  assume  for  the 
greatest  storms  the  values : 

C\  —  2.0G,  for  built-up  areas. 

Co  —  1.71,  for  average  areas. 

Co  —  0.85,  for  rural  areas. 

McMath’s  formula  for  the  City  of  St.  Louis,  gives  the  value 

C  —  2.06 

On  the  New  York  Diagrams  the  values  are: 

Cx  =  1.64,  for  completely  built-up  territory. 

Co  =  1.39,  for  well  built-up  territory. 

Cs  —  1.02,  for  suburban  territory. 

Either  of  these  formulae,  if  judiciously  applied,  will  be  useful 
in  determining  the  proper  sizes  for  drains  in  the  City  of  Baltimore. 


G 

EXISTING  SEWERS. 


The  City  of  Baltimore  is,  at  present,  without  a  system  of  modem 
sewers.  The  use  of  cesspools  for  the  reception  of  excrementitious 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


141 


matter  is  almost  general.  The  human  dejecta  are  now  retained 
in  them  until  periodically  removed  by  excavation.  On  the  sloping 
territory  some  of  these  accumulations  are  naturally  on  ground 
which  is  higher  than  that  upon  which  other  dwellings  are  located, 
and  in  porous  ground  there  will  naturally  be  a  percolation  of  the 
liquids  to  lower  territory  where  they  may  reappear  near  the  surface. 
That  they  will  be  somewhat  purified  is  beyond  a  doubt,  and  it  is 
also  certain  that  the  purification  will  in  some  cases  not  be  com¬ 
plete,  and  occasionally  cause  conditions  which  may  be  dangerous 
to  health. 

Nevertheless,  the  death  rate  of  the  City  of  Baltimore  is  not  high. 
But  it  is  higher  than  its  topographical  location  justifies,  and  higher 
than  in  many  other  cites,  which  though  much  less  favorably  situ¬ 
ated,  have  a  better  system  of  sewage  collection  and  removal. 

Waste  water  from  kitchens,  bath-rooms,  etc.,  is  generally  turned 
out  on  the  surface  of  the  ground  and  runs  away  in  the  open 
street  gutters,  thence  into  drains  and  finally  into  the  watercourses 
at  points  where  the  discharge  of  such  foul  liquids  must  become 
objectionable. 

In  a  few  instances,  private  sewers  are  said  to  discharge  into 
some  of  the  drains  now  acting  as  public  sewers,  and  into  open 
watercourses  or  directly  into  the  harbor.  In  many  instances,  ib  is 
said  that  the  cesspools  have  overflows  into  the  drains. 

Here  and  there  some  better  means  of  sewage  collection  and 
removal  may  be  in  use,  but  the  instances  are  few,  and  have  there¬ 
fore  no  bearing  upon  the  design  of  a  system  of  sewers. 

It  should  be  stated  here  that  a  clear  distinction  is  to  be  made 
between  sewers  and  drains.  The  former  are  channels  which  receive 
and  carry  away  foul  water  or  sewage  from  houses,  and  are  always 
closed  in.  The  latter  may  be  open  or  covered,  and  are  channels 
which  receive  and  carry  off  rain-water,  sub-soil  water,  or,  in  general, 
any  water  that  is  not  foul  or  not  sewage. 

In  Baltimore  it  was  intended  that  the  large  drains,  locally  called 
sewers,  should  carry  off  only  surface  and  sub-soil  water.  But  in 
the  absence  of  a  sewerage  system  the  polluted  gutter  water  or 
sewage  enters  the  drains.  It  was  expected  that  at  some  future 
day  this  condition  would  be  changed. 

The  drains  have,  therefore,  been  built  in  a  manner  which  may 
be  justified,  if  they  are  to  be  used  for  the  removal  of  comparatively 
clean  water.  They  are  not  built  in  a  manner  which  will  make 
them  serviceable  for  the  removal  of  foul  water  or  sewage. 


142 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


A  few  of  these  drains  lately  built  were  personally  examined  by 
one  of  us.  They  were  found  to  have  been  built  of  good  material, 
and  the  workmanship  appeared  excellent.  So  far  as  could  be 
judged  the  sections  were  well  constructed  for  strength  and 
durability. 

A  number  of  the  newer  and  older  drains  were  examined  as  to 
their  capacity,  and  it  was  found  that  they  are  sufficiently  large  to 
carry  off  the  rain-water  from  the  heaviest  storms  that  may  be 
liable  to  reach  them. 

A  few  of  the  older  drains,  such  as  that  on  Central  Avenue,  are 
quite  inconsistent  as  to  sizes  and  should  be  remodeled. 

In  the  Appendix  a  table  gives  the  results  of  a  few  calculations 
concerning  the  present  size  and  capacity  of  the  drains,  and  also  of 
the  capacities  which  will  be  necessary  in  the  future.  Some  will, 
no  doubt,  need  remodeling,  according  to  the  principles  mentioned  . 
under  Section  R. 

The  water,  as  it  flows  out  of  the  present  drains,  resembles  sewage, 
although  it  may  not  contain  as  much  organic  waste  matter  as 
will  be  found  in  a  modern  system  of  sewerage.  As  the  drains  are 
not  constructed  to  remove  sewage  rapidly  and  completely,  there 
is  much  decomposition  and  foulness,  and  the  sewage  at  some  points 
is  therefore  now  even  a  more  obnoxious  liquid  than  is  generally 
found  at  the  outfalls  of  properly  designed  sewers.  It  is  dis¬ 
charged  at  the  heads  of  bays  where  there  is  but  very  little  circu¬ 
lation  of  water.  The  slight  tidal  rise  and  fall  at  Baltimore  does 
not  remove  it  properly,  and  allows  it  to  accumulate  and  increase 
in  foulness. 


H 

MODERN  METHODS  OF  SEWAGE  DISPOSAL. 

The  object  of  a  modern  system  of  sewerage  is  to  remove  as 
quickly  as  possible  from  inhabited  territory  the  sewage  discharged 
from  the  buildings.  The  removal  should  not  only  be  rapid,  in  order 
to  prevent  decomposition  before  the  sewage  is  disposed  of,  but  it 
should  also  be  thorough  and  not  allow  of  deposits  or  accumula¬ 
tions  in  the  sewers,  which  create  foulness  within  them  and  cause 
the  escaping  air  to  pollute  the  atmosphere.  A  further  object  of 
modern  sewerage  is  to  dispose  of  the  offensive  liquids  finally  in 
such  a  manner  that  they  will  cause  no  nuisance  and  that  they  are 
converted  into  uninjurious  and  inoffensive  liquids. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


143 


There  is  no  need  of  stating  to  you  that  the  only  proper  method 
of  sewerage  for  a  large  city  is  the  water  carriage  system,  by  which 
the  waste  matters  from  buildings,  such  as  can  be  suspended  or 
dissolved  in  running  water,  are  carried  away  by  it.  No  reference 
will  therefore  be  made  to  other  methods,  some  of  which  still  have 
their  advocates.  No  reference  will  be  made  to  the  use  of  earth 
closets.  Though  excellent  for  individual  houses  to  which  a  sewer 
is  not  accessible,  and  excellent  for  the  disposal  of  excrementitious 
matter  alone,  yet  they  cannot  be  considered  a  part  of  a  sewerage 
system  for  a  city,  because  they  do  not  dispose  of  the  large  quantity 
of  fouled  waste  water. 

There  are  several  methods  according  to  which  sewage  can  be 
safely  and  properly  disposed  of,  namely,  by  a  dilution  in  large 
bodies  of  water,  by  precipitating  and  separating  from  the  sewage 
a  large  proportion  of  the  organic  matter,  and  by  filtration  of  the 
sewage  through  porous  soil.  These  methods  will  now  be  discussed 
more  fully,  together  with  their  application  to  the  City  of  Baltimore. 

It  should  be  added  at  this  place  that  the  object  to  be  obtained  is 
first  and  foremost  a  sanitary  one,  namely,  the  purification  of  the 
sewage.  The  question  of  cost,  though  important,  is  but  secondary. 

It  may  also  be  added,  that  the  question  of  utilizing  the  manurial 
elements  contained  in  the  sewage  must  be  decided  upon  the  basis 
of  cost.  If  the  expense  of  extracting  these  elements  is  greater  than 
the  price  at  which  they  can  be  sold,  it  is  preferable  to  waste  them. 
The  latter  conclusion  is  the  usual  one.  When  sewage  is  purified 
by  filtration  on  land  this  land  can  usually  be  devoted  to  the 
raising  of  crops.  But  experience  has  shown  that  the  increased 
productiveness  is  due  quite  as  much  to  the  liberal  irrigation  with 
water  as  to  any  fertilization  derived  from  the  same.  It  is  often 
necessary  to  use  additional  fertilizers  to  produce  the  desired  crops. 
But  the  ill  effect,  of  droughts  is  entirely  avoided  and  the  farmer 
is  more  sure  of  his  crops. 


i 

DILUTION. 

To  dispose  of  sewage  by  dilution  means  to  discharge  it  into  run¬ 
ning  water  in  a  suitable  proportion  so  that  no  putrefaction  will 
take  place,  and  that  the  oxygen  contained  in  the  water  will 
gradually  decompose  the  organic  matter  of  the  sewage  and  convert 


144 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


it  into  harmless  compounds.  When  sewage  is  thus  diluted  it  gives 
no  offense. 

We  have  examples  of  this  in  the  discharge  of  sewage  into  large 
streams,  such  as  the  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Ohio  and  Schuylkill 
rivers,  which  are  all  even  used  for  drinking  water.  It  must  be 
understood,  however,  that  the  question  in  which  we  are  here  con¬ 
cerned  does  not  refer  to  the  discharge  of  sewage  into  a  stream 
which  is  subsequently  to  be  used  for  drinking  purposes. 

The  question  as  to  whether  or  not  sewage  may  be  properly  dis¬ 
charged  into  a  given  river,  is  decided  by  the  degree  of  nuisance 
that  will  be  caused  by  the  pollution.  This  nuisance  is  partly  due 
to  the  unsightliness  of  sewage  matter  stranded  along  the  shores 
or  on  any  shoals  that  may  exist  during  low  water.  It  is  mainly  due 
to  the  offensive  odors  that  arise  from  putrefaction.  Putrefaction 
occurs  when  there  is  insufficient  oxygen  present  in  the  water  to 
allow  the  dead  organic  matter  to  be  decomposed  solely  by  oxida¬ 
tion,  which  is  itself  not  an  offensive  process. 

While  it  is  therefore  practicable  to  discharge  some  sewage  into 
the  running  water  of  streams,  there  is  a  limit  to  the  quantity  when 
the  excess  of  free  oxygen  contained  in  the  water  becomes  insuffi¬ 
cient  to  oxidize  it.  To  obtain  the  best  results  by  this  dilution 
method  of  sewage  disposal,  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  sewage 
matter  dissolved  or  well  comminuted  so  that  it  can  be  thoroughly 
exposed  to  the  action  of  the  oxygen. 

Therefore,  no  constant  relation  can  exist  between  a  certain 
quantity  of  sewage  and  the  amount  of  flowing  water  that  will 
render  it  innocuous.  Where  the  velocity  of  the  stream  is  lessened 
and  there  is  consequently  a  chance  for  deposit,  sewage  will  require 
a  greater  dilution  than  if  the  flow  is  rapid  and  continuous. 

As  a  measure  of  the  amount  of  permissible  pollution,  the  sewage 
should  be  indicated,  not  so  much  by  its  actual  quantity,  as  by  the 
population  from  which  it  comes,  and  by  the  quantity  of  manufac¬ 
turing  refuse  which  it  contains.  The  amount  of  waste  organic 
matter  is  more  constant  with  reference  to  a  given  number  of  persons 
than  to  the  amount  of  the  sewage  coming  from  them.  The  latter 
depends  almost  entirely  upon  the  liberality  with  which  the  public 
water  supply  is  used  and  subsequently  discharged  as  sewage. 

It  has  been,  found  that  the  sewage  from  one  thousand  persons 
can  be  satisfactorily  diluted  in  non-tidal  streams  by  a  flow  of 
water  varying  from  two  to  seven  cubic  feet  per  second,  according 
to  the  different  conditions  of  the  stream.  Under  the  conditions 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


145 


found  in  Baltimore,  where  there  is  a  very  sluggish  flow  of  upland 
■water,  and  also  a  slight  tidal  current,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  allow 
less  than  a  minimum  flow  of  three  cubic  feet  per  second  to  render 
the  sewage  of  one  thousand  persons  inoffensive. 

When  sewage  is  discharged  into  a  tidal  stream,  it  must  be  realized 
that  the  fluctuation  of  the  tide  causes  not  only  a  downward,  but 
also  an  upward  current.  Therefore  sewage  discharged  into  it  will 
oscillate  and  be  carried  away  much  more  slowly  than  the  apparent 
outflowing  water  of  ebb-tide.  The  question  of  dilution  in  tidal 
streams  is  therefore  almost  entirely  one  of  dilution  by  the  upland 
water  which  enters  the  stream  and  gradually  pushes  out  into  the 
ocean. 

The  oscillation  of  a  large  quantity  of  tidal  water  has,  besides, 
the  effect  of  a  more  thorough  dispersion  by  the  greater  velocity 
and  mass  of  the  water,  also  the  effect,  which  is  sometimes  bene¬ 
ficial,  of  causing  a  deposit  of  the  heavier  matter,  which  will  thus 
free  the  water  from  carrying  it  in  suspension  and  more  highly  pol¬ 
luting  it.  The  deposited  matter  is  then  sometimes  carried  away 
or  dispersed  during  freshets. 

If  the  tidal  stream  though  wide,  is  also  short,  there  is  another 
beneficial  effect  in  the  circumstance  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
sewage  is  carried  out  into  the  larger  body  of  water  where  the  tidal 
stream  discharges,  and  with  the  incoming  tide  does  not  always 
return  into  the  stream.  It  is  therefore  permanently  removed 
from  it. 

In  connection  with  this  method  of  disposal  it  should  not  be 
forgotten  that  a  discharge  into  salt  water  causes  a  less  rapid  oxida¬ 
tion  than  a  discharge  into  fresh  water;  and  also  that  the  value  of 
fish  and  other  aquatic  animals  in  disposing  of  sewage  is  very  slight, 
and  should  not  be  counted  on. 

The  effect  of  sewage  discharged  upon  oyster  beds,  wherever 
sufficient  inquiry  was  made,  has  been  found  deleterious.  Evidence 
has  been  obtained,  for  instance,  in  New  Haven,  that  the  discharge 
of  sewage  near  oyster  beds,  and  the  subsequent  eating  of  the 
oysters,  caused  typhoid  fever.  Similar  evidence  has  been  obtained 
elsewhere. 

In  order  to  show  the  probable  effect  of  discharging  sewage  into 
the  Patapsco  River  at  different  points  under  the  least  favorable 
conditions,  the  necessary  calculations  were  made.  These  condi¬ 
tions  occur  when  the  dry  weather  flow  enters  the  river  from  its 
drainage  area,  and  therefore  contributes  the  least  amount  of  water 
to  dilute  the  sewage. 


146 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  best  available  information  regarding  the  least  dry  weather 
flow  of  the  streams  about  Baltimore  is  as  follows : 

From  the  United  States  Census  of  38S0  we  find  that  the  dry 
weather  flow  of  the  Patapsco  River  above  Ellicott  City  and  above 
Relay  is  about  0.22  cubic  feet  per  square  mile  per  second. 

From  information  furnished  by  the  Water  Department  of  the 
City  of  Baltimore  we  find  that  the  dry  weather  flow  of  Gwynn’s 
Falls  is  0.41  cubic  feet  per  square  mile  per  second,  and  that  of 
Jones’  Falls  is  0.44  cubic  feet  per  square  mile  per  second. 

From  the  United  States  Census  we  learn  that  the  minimum  flow 
of  Rock  Creek  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  is  0.114  cubic  feet  per  square 
mile  per  second. 

In  our  calculations  we  have  assumed  that  the  minimum  flow 
from  the  creeks  and  from  the  general  territory  witliin  the  City  of 
Baltimore,  including  the  Patapsco  River,  is  0.2  cubic  feet  per  square 
mile  per  second. 

The  entire  drainage  area  of  the  river  above  a  line  drawn  from 
North  Point  to  Rock  Point,  is  556  square  miles.  The  minimum 
flow  of  upland  water  at  the  mouth  of  this  river  would  therefore  be 
about  111  cubic  feet  per  second. 

If  we  assume  that  the  sewage  of  1,000  persons  can  be  properly 
diluted  in  a  large  body  of  water  by  a  minimum  flow  of  3  cubic  feet 
per  second,  then  the  Patapsco  River  could,  without  becoming 
offensive,  receive  the  sewage  of  about  37,000  persons. 

It  will  be  evident,  therefore,  that  no  system  of  sewTerage  that  is 
recommended  for  your  city  should  contemplate  the  discharge  of  all 
of  its  sewage  into  this  river.  It  will  be  necessary  to  reserve  its 
limited  diluting  power  to  counteract  the  effects  due  partly  to  the 
refuse  discharged  into  the  river  and  its  branches  from  the  ships 
and  wharves,  partly  to  the  refuse  which  is  brought  down  and  dis¬ 
charged  into  the  river  by  the  drains  during  storms,  when  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  city  is  washed  clean  of  much  organic  deposit,  and  partly 
also  to  a  small  amount  of  sewage  which,  at  least  at  present,  it 
will  be  found  preferable  to  discharge  directly  into  the  river  from 
Ferry  Point  and  near  Fort  McHenry. 

Calculations  were  also  made  to  show  the  displacement  of  the 
tidal  prism  by  the  upland  minimum  flow.  Owing  to  the  width  of 
the  river  below  the  city,  it  is  found  that  the  gradual  movement 
toward  Chesapeake  Bay  is  very  slight,  and  that,  if  sewage  were 
discharged  into  the  river,  it  would  be  removed  very  slowly,  and 
therefore  cause  objectionable  conditions. 


for  the  crrv  of  Baltimore  147 

A  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  by  dilution,  therefore, 
would  mean  nothing  less  than  the  building  of  a  sewer  to  near 
North  Point  and  of  discharging  its  contents  into  the  current  of 
Chesapeake  Bay.  No  point  nearer  the  city  and  no  smaller  body  of 
water,  such  as  Back  River,  would  prevent  dissatisfaction. 

North  Point  was  suggested  already  in  1881  for  this  purpose  by 
Mr.  Charles  H.  Latrobe,  C.  E.,  in  his  “  Report  on  a  System  of  Sew¬ 
erage  for  the  City  of  Baltimore.”  This  outfall  was  placed  in  about 
fourteen  feet  of  water. 

The  channel  in  the  bay  is  near  the  Eastern  Shore,  and  no  place 
having  more  than  eighteen  feet  of  water  at  mean  low  tide  is  found 
within  two  and  a  half  miles  of  the  Point. 

It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  discharge  the  sewage  into  the  com¬ 
paratively  shallow  water  of  the  bay  and  into  a  tidal  current.  A 
calculation  with  reference  to  the  flow  of  upland  water  which  would 
pass  down  Chesapeake  Bay  opposite  North  Point  during  extreme 
dry  weather,  based  partly  on  observations  and  partly  on  deductions, 
is  about  6,800  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  ordinary  minimum  dis¬ 
charge  is  about  20,000  cubic  feet  per  second. 

Therefore,  could  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  be  discharged  into  the 
current  of  the  waters  of  Chesapeake  Bay,  it  is  safe  to  assume  from 
what  was  said  above  that  at  the  lowest  figure  applied  to  non-tidal 
streams,  the  sewage  of  about  two  and  a  quarter  million  people 
might  thus  be  disposed  of  at  the  most  unfavorable  time. 

The  effect  upon  the  oyster  beds,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge 
at  the  present  time,  is  problematic.  It  is  true  that  there  is  evidence 
showing  the  danger  of  having  oyster  beds  near  the  sewage  outfall. 
But,  in  case  ill  effects  are  positively  demonstrated,  and  in  case 
there  were  no  other  method  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  so  large 
and  important  a  city  as  Baltimore,  then  it  would  be  necessary  to 
abandon  as  many  of  the  oyster  beds  as  would  be  subject  to  pollu¬ 
tion. 

In  order  to  deliver  the  sewage  at  North  Point  it  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  build  an  outfall  sewer  all  the  way  from  the  city.  Mr.  Allen 
made  surveys  and  profiles  of  several  lines,  as  directed  by  us,  from 
which  after  a  careful  study,  the  best  one  was  selected. 

Assuming  a  starting  point  on  the  Shell  Road  at  Twenty-fifth 
street,  the  line  extends  to  General’s  Point,  there  crosses  Bear  Creek 
by  means  of  an  inverted  siphon,  described  below,  and  continues  in 
an  easterly  and  then  southeasterly  direction  until  it  reaches  a  gate 
house  at  the  shore,  also  described  below,  and  thence  is  continued 
with  a  submerged  outlet  into  the  current  of  the  bay. 


Mi  H  v *» i ; i*  i’ ii' ii 

i «  »*  I  iv*  i  '  1  •  f  i  1 1 

148  REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 

A  settling  basin  should  be  constructed  at  the  upper  end  of  the 
outfall  sewer,  to  collect  the  sand  and  other  solid  matter  which 
will  settle.  It  is  an  underground  chamber  into  which  the  outfall 
sewer  discharges,  and  has  two  channels  for  the  sewage,  so  that 
one  channel  can  be  in  use  while  the  other  is  shut  off.  Each  channel 
should  have  a  gate  at  each  end,  and  one  in  the  division  wall 
between  the  two  channels,  for  drawing  off  the  sewage  left  in  the 
channel  between  the  gates  when  they  are  closed.  A  sump  is 
placed  in  the  bottom  of  each  channel  for  collecting  the  sand. 

A  house  is  erected  over  this  chamber  with  provisions  for  thor¬ 
oughly  lighting  and  ventilating  the  channels.  A  traveling  crane 
and  hoisting  apparatus  for  cleaning  out  the  sumps  should  be  placed 
in  this  building,  and  the  necessary  tracks  provided,  on  which  small 
cars  can  receive  the  sand  and  deposit  it  at  a  dumping  place. 

The  inverted  siphon  under  Bear  Creek  has  an  underground  cham¬ 
ber  on  the  west  shore  from  which  two  five  foot  nine  inch  brick 
conduits  extend  underneath  the  bottom  of  the  creek  to  two  vertical 
wells  rising  to  an  underground  chamber  on  the  east  shore  of  the 
creek,  out  of  which  chamber  the  outfall  sewer  extends  eastwardly 
to  the  outfall.  In  the  chamber  at  the  west  shore  a  gate  is  placed 
in  front  of  each  siphon  opening,  and  in  the  chamber  at  the  east 
shore  there  are  stop  planks  to  allow  either  siphon  to  be  shut  off 
and  pumped  out  in  case  of  a  break. 

Both  of  these  siphons  should  be  built  at  once,  but  they  are 
large  enough  to  take  the  total  amount  of  sewage  estimated  to  flow 
in  the  outfall  sewer  when  the  city  has  one  million  inhabitants.  In 
order  that  the  smaller  amount  of  sewage,  which  will  be  collected 
at  first,  may  flow  through  the  siphon  at  a  velocity  sufficient  to  keep 
sediment  from  depositing,  only  one  of  them  should  be  used  for 
present  service.  Then,  in  case  of  a  break  the  sewage  could  flow 
through  the  other  conduit.  In  order  to  provide  for  the  remote 
contingency  of  a  break  in  both  conduits,  an  overflow  pipe  opens 
out  of  the  side  wall  of  the  chamber  on  the  west  shore,  through 
which  the  sewage  can  be  discharged  into  the  creek.  A  house 
should  be  erected  over  each  of  these  underground  chambers,  having 
arrangements  for  thoroughly  lighting  and  ventilating  them,  and 
for  operating  the  large  conduit  gates  and  setting  stop  planks. 

A  settling-basin  should  be  built  at  the  bottom  of  the  sewer,  just 
west  of  the  upper  chamber,  so  as  to  keep  whatever  solid  matter 
may  have  passed  the  main  settling-basin  from  getting  into  the 
siphon. 


I  I  (i  \\  I,  f!  Y 

fcfisWfor  uni; 


Or; 1. 1 1: \ 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


149 


A  gate  house  is  located  on  the  shore  of  Chesapeake  Bay,  from 
which  two  outfall  pipes  extend  into  it  about  two  and  a  half  miles. 
As  only  one  of  these  lines  of  pipes  need  be  built  for  present  service, 
two  overflow  conduits  have  been  provided  and  extend  to  the  shore 
of  the  bay,  so  as  to  discharge  the  sewage  in  case  of  a  break  or 
stoppage  in  the  outfall  pipes. 

Gates  are  provided  for  these  conduits,  and  manholes  for  their 
examination  or  repair.  A  retaining  wall  protects  the  gate  house 
and  overflow  conduits  from  the  sea.  A  house  should  be  built  over 
the  gate  chamber  with  provisions  for  lighting  and  ventilating  it. 
The  gates  of  the  overflow  conduits  are  operated  from  the  floor  of 
this  house,  and  arrangements  exist  for  raising  and  lowering  each 
gate. 

The  route  of  the  main  collecting  and  intercepting  sewers  through 
the  city  is  shown  in  detail  upon  the  plan  and  profile  which  accom¬ 
pany  this  report. 

The  territory  lying  below  the  line  of  the  gravity  mam  intercepting 
sewer  is  served  by  low  level  interceptors,  practically  skirting  the 
edge  of  the  branches  of  the  river  and  the  harbor,  one  or  two  blocks 
from  it,  and  collecting  the  sewage  to  a  low  point  near  the  inter¬ 
section  of  Lombard  street  and  Jones’  Falls.  Here,  a  pumping 
station  would  be  located,  where  the  sewage  could  be  lifted  and 
discharged  through  a  force  main  into  the  main  intercepting  sewer 
at  Broadway  and  Lombard  street. 

The  location  of  this  pumping  station  was  selected  with  reference 
to  concentrating  the  sewage  to  the  best  advantage,  and  with  due 
regard  to  economy  both  in  constructing  and  operating  the  system. 

The  station,  as  shown  on  the  plan,  has  been  designed  to  contain 
a  pumping  plant  of  sufficient  capacity  to  raise  the  sewage  from 
the  low  level  system  to  the  high  level  interceptor,  at  the  maximum 
rate  of  flow,  when  the  city  has  one  million  people. 

It  has  been  estimated  that  the  total  amount  of  sewage  from 
the  1owt  level  system  would  amount  to  32,250,000  gallons  per  24 
hours  from  about  215,000  persons,  and  assuming  that  one-half  of 
this  sewage  is  delivered  in  eight  hours,  the  maximum  flow  into 
the  pump  well  is  at  the  rate  of  48,375,000  gallons  per  24  hours. 

To  pump  this  amount  to  the  high  level  interceptor  requires  two 
25-million  gallon  pumps,  and  a  boiler  capacity  of  about  500  horse¬ 
power.  To  have  sufficient  reserve  power,  this  station  is  designed  to 
contain  three  25-million  gallon  pumps  and  three  250  horse-power 
boilers. 


MJ1  *;{i  Yr'KflSniKI 

150  HE  PORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 

It  is  presumed  that  all  of  the  low  level  intercepting  sewers  would 
he  constructed  in  a  few  years,  and  that  the  construction  of  the 
District  sewers  and  branches  is  extended  over  a  much  longer  period. 
Therefore,  it  is  estimated  that  the  total  amount  of  sewage  for 
which  present  pumps  should  provide,  is  about  10,500,000  gallons 
per  day,  coming  from  about  70,000  persons.  Assuming  that  one- 
half  of  this  amount  runs  off  in  eight  hours,  the  maximum  delivery 
of  sewage  would  be  at  the  rate  of  15,750,000  gallons  per  24  hours. 
To  pump  this  quantity  to  the  high  level  interceptor  requires  one 
25-million  gallon  pump  and  one  250  horse-power  boiler.  The 
station  should  therefore  be  provided  at  once  with  two  25 -million 
gallon  pumps  and  two  250  horse-power  boilers. 

The  sewage  from  the  low  level  system  is  brought  to  the  pumping 
station  through  a  3  foot  6  inch  main  sewer  from  the  south  and  a 
2  foot  4  inch  sewer  from  the  north  in  Front  street,  and  a  5  foot  6 
inch  sewer  in  Water  street. 

The  two  sewers  first  mentioned  join  near  the  pumping  station, 
and  the  sewage  from  both  is  brought  to  the  pump  well  through  a 
4  foot  6  inch  sewer.  The  sewage  from  the  5  foot  8  inch  sewer  is 
brought  under  Jones’  Falls  to  the  pump  well  in  a  4  foot  6  inch 
siphon  tunnel.  These  two  4  foot  6  inch  sewers  are  brought  to  a 
gate  and  cage  chamber.  After  passing  the  gates  the  sewage  flows 
through  a  screen  cage,  which  collects  the  larger  solid  particles  of 
the  sewage.  There  are  two  such  cages  for  each  of  the  two  main 
sewers,  one  in  front  of  the  other,  so  that  when  one  is  being  cleaned, 
the  other  screens  the  sewage.  A  hoisting  apparatus  raises  and 
lowers  them.  It  is  operated  by  an  engine  located  at  the  end  of  the 
boiler  room,  and  is  so  arranged  that  it  can  be  operated  by  hand, 
if  there  should  be  an  accident  to  the  engine. 

The  screenings  can  be  thrown  into  a  car  and  taken  to  the  boilers 
and  burned. 

From  the  cage  chamber  the  sewage  discharges  into  a  screen  well, 
from  which  conduits  lead  to  the  suction  pipes  of  the  pumps,  in  front 
of  which  are  inclined  composition-metal  screens  preventing  the 
finer  particles  from  entering  the  suction  pipes.  These  are  kept 
free  and  clean  by  raking  from  a  platform  in  the  well  provided  for 
that  purpose.  The  screenings  are  also  to  be  burned. 

The  screen  well  is  accessible  by  a  flight  of  steps  and  is  lighted 
from  overhead  and  thoroughly  ventilated  through  a  large  brick 
conduit  extending  to  a  flue  in  the  smoke-stack. 

The  pumps  discharge  into  a  48  inch  force  main,  which  would 
extend  out  Lombard  street  to  the  high  level  interceptor. 


POE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


151 


The  coal  house  would  be  large  enough  for  storing  about  100 
tons  of  coal,  and  teams  could  be  driven  up  the  inclined  driveway 
from  the  street  in  front  of  the  pumping  station,  and  the  coal 
delivered  through  chutes  in  the  side  windows  of  the  coal  house. 

The  smoke-stack  for  this  station  would  be  about  100  feet  high 
and  five  feet  interior  diameter  of  core.  It  is  so  arranged  that  an 
economizer  could  be  placed  in  the  smoke  flue  leading  from  the 
boilers  to  the  stack. 

In  locating  the  intercepting  sewers  above  mentioned,  many  diffi¬ 
culties  were  met,  such  as  the  crossing  of  Jones’  Falls,  G wynn’s  Falls, 
the  B.  &  O.  Railroad  Tunnel  and  numerous  large  drains,  and  solu¬ 
tions  studied  out  so  as  to  make  the  lines  practicable  and  compara¬ 
tively  inexpensive. 

The  elevation  of  the  water  in  the  well  at  the  pumping  station  was 
fixed  at  about  18  feet  below  mean  low  water,  from  which  it  was 
necessary  to  lift  the  sewage  fifty-two  feet,  in  order  to  discharge  it 
into  the  high  level  interceptor  and  outfall  sewer.  The  territory 
from  which  the  sewage  would  require  pumping,  was  estimated  at 
about  3,550  acres,  having  a  present  population  of  about  183,000 
persons,  and  an  estimated  future  population  of  about  288,000 
persons. 

The  sewage  of  the  different  parts  of  the  city  would  be  delivered 
by  main  sewers,  suitably  located  to  collect  the  sewage  economically 
from  each  natural  sewerage  district. 


j 

PRECIPITATION. 

Another  method  of  disposing  of  sewage  is  to  clarify  it  by  the 
addition  of  certain  chemicals,  to  let  the  clear  water  enter  a  stream 
and  to  put  the  settlings  on  land.  When  milk  of  lime,  salts  of  iron 
or  aluminum  are  added  to  the  sewage,  much  of  the  organic  matter 
contained  therein  is  coagulated  and  gradually  settles  to  the  bottom. 
The  supernatant  liquid  is  thus  cleared  and  relieved  of  a  large 
portion  of  this  organic  matter.  Experience  shows  that  about  one- 
half  of  the  organic  matter  originally  contained  in  the  sewage  can 
thus  be  precipitated. 

To  allow  the  sewage  to  deposit  its  suspended  matter  without 
the  addition  of  chemicals  is  not  advantageous.  It  is  true  that 


152 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


some  of  the  heavier  particles  will  fall  to  the  bottom  when  the 
velocity  of  the  sewage  is  reduced,  or  entirely  ceases,  but  the  process 
is  slow  and  imperfect.  It  does  not  remove  a  sufficient  quantity  of 
the  offensive  matter  to  justify  the  expense  of  such  a  plant. 

The  precipitated  sewage  matter,  or  “  sludge,”  must  be  artificially 
removed  from  the  settling  tanks  and  separately  disposed  of. 

The  treatment  by  precipitation  consists  in  allowing  the  sewage 
to  enter  large  tanks  after  it  has  received  the  proper  quantity  of 
chemicals,  and  to  allow  it  either  to  rest,  or  to  pass  very  slowly 
through  the  tanks,  so  that  the  suspended  matter  can  settle  to  the 
bottom  before  the  water  leaves  them.  It  is  allowed  to  flow  out 
over  a  weir  as  a  thin  sheet  of  water.  There  must  be  enough  of 
these  tanks  to  enable  the  sewage  to  pass  through  at  a  sufficiently 
slow  rate,  and  to  allow  of  a  sufficient  number  to  be  out  of  use,  while 
the  sludge  is  being  removed  from  them. 

The  disposal  of  the  sludge  is  the  most  difficult  part  of  the  process 
of  sewage  precipitation.  As  it  is  in  a  semi-liquid  form,  the  best 
method  of  dealing  with  it,  under  all  but  extraordinary  conditions, 
is  to  pump  it  into  so-called  sludge  presses,  which  remove  the  water 
and  transform  the  sludge  into  solid  cakes  which  can  readily  be 
disposed  of.  They  can  be  used  either  for  filling  in  land,  or,  where 
the  expense  of  hauling  is  not  too  great,  they  have  been  profitably 
used  to  fertilize  land,  or  they  have  been  burned. 

The  best  example  of  sewage  precipitation  in  this  country,  and 
perhaps  in  the  world,  is  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  with  which  works  you 
are,  no  doubt,  more  or  less  familiar.  The  sludge  has  there  been 
disposed  of  by  pumping  it  upon  land  and  letting  the  sun  dry  it. 
At  present,  however,  arrangements  are  being  made  to  erect  presses 
and  to  transform  it  into  cakes,  as  described  above. 

The  advantage  of  a  sewage  precipitation  plant,  so  far  as  Balti¬ 
more  is  concerned,  is  the  circumstance  that  while  the  outfall  sewer 
for  a  dilution  project  would  have  to  be  built  at  once  with  its  full 
capacity,  a  precipitation  plant  need  be  built  at  first  only  of  a  size 
to  accommodate  the  early  flow  of  sewage,  and  then  be  gradually 
extended  as  the  amount  of  sewage  increased.  Another  advantage 
of  such  a  plant  would  be  its  temporary  use  along  the  line  of  the 
discharge  mains  to  the  proposed  filtration  fields,  and  thus  tempo¬ 
rarily  save  the  cost  of  preparing  the  latter  and  of  pumping  the 
sewage  to  so  great  a  height. 

The  disadvantage  of  such  a  plant  lies  in  the  fact  that  its  opera¬ 
tion  is  somewhat  expensive.  It  has  been  found  in  Worcester,  where 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


153 


the  works  are  managed  with  exceptional  skill,  that  the  annual  cost 
of  treatment,  exclusive  of  laboratory  expenses  and  sludge  disposal, 
has  been  nearly  30  cents  per  head  of  population. 

Considering  this  cost  to  be  the  same  in  Baltimore,  and  adding  a 
proper  amount  for  the  pressing  and  disposal  of  the  sludge,  we  have 
estimated,  for  such  treatment  in  your  city,  an  annual  expense  of 
thirty-five  cents  per  head  of  population.  If  we  assume  a  future 
population  of  one  million  inhabitants,  the  annual  cost  of  precipi¬ 
tation,  including  sludge  disposal,  would  then  be  f 350,000. 

When  the  clarified  sewage  is  discharged  into  a  stream,  it  must 
also  be  diluted  in  order  to  prevent  subsequent  offensive  decompo¬ 
sition.  But  the  dilution  need  not,  of  course,  be  so  great  as  in  the 
case  of  raw  sewage,  containing  suspended  organic  matter  which  is 
much  slower  in  yielding  to  oxidation. 

It  is  uncertain  how  much  of  this  sewage  effluent  may  be  safely 
discharged  at  the  mouth  of  Colgate  Creek  or  into  the  Patapsco 
Biver. 

As  the  process  removes  only  about  one-half  of  the  organic  matter 
there  is,  under  favorable  conditions,  still  a  cause  left  for  offensive 
decomposition.  In  fact,  in  the  absence  of  sufficient  oxygen  the 
dissolved  matter  yields  even  more  rapidly  to  putrefaction  than  the 
suspended  matter.  But  once  exposed  to  oxygen  it  will  also  more 
rapidly  be  converted  into  inoffensive  compounds.  If,  instead  of  3 
cubic  feet  per  second,  as  above  assumed  in  the  case  of  raw  sewage, 
we  were  to  allow  but  one-tenth  of  this  quantity,  or  0.3  cubic  feet  per 
second  of  fresh  water,  to  dilute  the  effluent  sewage  from  precipita¬ 
tion  tanks  per  1,000  persons,  the  minimum  flow  of  the  Patapsco 
River,  estimated  above  at  111  cubic  feet  per  second,  would  be 
capable  of  receiving  such  effluent  water  from  only  370,000  persons. 
To  discharge  the  effluent  from  one  million  people  during  the  late 
summer  months,  might  therefore  possibly  become  objectionable, 
particularly  as  no  allowance  has  above  been  made  for  the  effect  of 

the  pollution  of  the  harbor  by  the  shipping  and  by  storm  water 

* 

discharge. 

A  precipitation  project,  as  a  permanent  solution  of  the  problem 
of  sewage  disposal  for  the  city,  should  therefore  require  a  discharge 
of  the  effluent  water  into  Chesapeake  Bay. 

A  convenient  location  for  the  precipitation  works  is  on  a  tract 
of  land  lying  easterly  of  the  city,  and  on  the  southerly  side  of 
Fifth  avenue,  near  the  head  of  Colgate  Creek,  as  shown  on  the  map. 
Nearly  80  per  centum  of  the  entire  sewage  of  the  city  can  be 


154 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


brought  to  the  works  by  gravity,  while  the  balance  will  have  to  be 
raised  about  52  feet  by  pumping. 

The  works  have  been  designed  to  treat,  for  the  present,  an 
average  of  50,000,000  gallons  of  sewage  per  24  hours,  or  for  a  popu¬ 
lation  of  about  330,000  persons.  There  are  48  tanks  required,  10 
of  which  are  92.4  by  325  feet,  18  are  50  by  172  feet,  and  20  are  50 
by  150  feet;  in  all  of  them  the  sewage  will  average  6  feet  in  depth. 
The  combined  capacity  of  the  tanks  is  27,229,500  gallons,  or  a  little 
more  than  50  per  cent,  of  the  estimated  present  flow.  They  have 
been  so  designed  that  a  part,  or  the  whole  of  them,  can  be  built 
at  once;  also,  that  additions  can  be  made  from  time  to  time,  as  the 
flow  of  sewage  increases.  They  will  cover  an  area  of  G80  by  1,100 
feet,  or  about  17.13  acres,  including  the  channels. 

The  method  of  treatment  suggested  for  the  sewage,  and  for  which 
the  works  were  planned,  requires  the  use  of  lime  and  sulphate  of 
alumina  as  coagulants,  and  filter  presses  for  treating  the  sludge. 

Buildings  have  been  planned  to  accommodate  the  necessary 
machinery  to  apply  this  method.  They  consist  of  a  screen  house, 
engine  and  boiler  house,  chimney  and  a  sludge-press  house. 

The  screen  house,  with  a  screen  chamber  and  rack,  is  built  over 
the  main  outfall  sewer,  so  that  all  foreign  substances  may  be 
detained  and  as  often  as  necessary  removed  from  the  screen  by 
rakes.  These  screenings  are  taken  to  the  boilers  and  burned. 

The  boiler  and  engine  house  is  50  by  80  feet,  with  two  floors.  The 
boiler  room  is  at  one  end  of  the  lower  floor,  and  the  other  end 
contains  the  engines,  chemical  mixers  and  electric  motors.  On 
the  second  floor  are  the  chemical  store  room,  laboratory  and  offices 
for  the  superintendent. 

The  sludge-press  building,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  sewage 
channel,  is  48  by  102  feet,  single  story,  and  contains  the  sludge 
pump  and  presses.  It  is  devoted  exclusively  to  this  part  of  the 
work.  A  reservoir  is  placed  under  the  ground  at  one  end  of  this 
building,  where  the  sludge  is  collected  from  the  tanks  previous  to 
pumping  it  into  the  presses. 

It  is  probable  that  a  portion  of  the  power  needed  for  driving  the 
chemical  mixers  and  dynamos  used  for  lighting,  may  be  derived 
from  the  fall  of  the  effluent  as  it  is  discharged  into  the  creek.  There 
is  an  available  fall  of  about  10  feet,  and  assuming  a  daily  flow  of 
50,000,000  gallons,  there  would  be  87  gross  horse-power,  but  as  the 
discharge  is  extremely  variable,  it  is  not  safe  to  estimate  more  than 
one-half,  or  about  40  horse-power.  The  balance  required  must  be 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


155 


supplied  by  steam,  and  steam  power  is  necessary  for  operating  the 
various  pumps. 

Estimates  of  the  amount  of  sludge  that  will  be  produced  are 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  for  every  1,000  people  54  cubic 
feet  of  sludge  may  be  expected,  and  that  for  the  assumed  population 
for  present  purposes  18,000  cubic  feet  per  day  will  have  to  be  taken 
care  of.  Twenty-two  sludge  presses  and  four  sludge  pumps  are 
required  for  this  amount.  Ample  capacity  for  taking  care  of  the 
sludge  should  be  provided,  for  upon  its  prompt  removal  depends 
much  of  the  efficiency  of  such  a  plant. 

For  mixing  the  chemicals  eight  mixers  are  estimated.  They  are 
designed  to  run  by  independent  electric  motors;  this  method  being- 
much  more  simple  than  the  older  method  of  shafting  and  belts. 

Several  vats  for  slacking  the  lime  are  also  provided  in  the 
building. 

There  are  two  50  horse  power  boilers,  one  engine  and  an  electric 
dynamo;  the  latter  is  required  both  for  transmitting  power  and 
for  lighting. 

Should  the  effluent  water  be  used  for  power,  a  wheel-house 
and  dynamo  are  needed  near  its  outlet.  The  power  could  be 
brought  through  the  engine  room  by  wires  and  then  distributed  as 
needed. 

The  method  of  operating  the  works  is  as  follows : 

The  sewage,  after  passing  through  the  screen  house,  enters  the 
mixing  channel,  where  it  receives  the  milk  of  lime,  and  a  few  feet 
further  a  solution  of  sulphate  of  alumina.  After  a  thorough  mixing 
by  a  mechanical  device,  or  by  flowing  over  and  around  obstructions 
placed  in  the  channel,  it  then  enters  the  gate  house,  where  it  can 
be  diverted  into  either  one  of  the  various  channels,  and  by  means 
of  gates,  is  first  discharged  into  the  larger  or  roughing  tanks,  where 
the  bulk  of  the  solids  is  deposited.  From  these  tanks  the  sewage 
flows  over  a  weir,  at  the  farther  end  of  the  tank,  into  the  influent 
channel.  Skimming  boards  are  placed  in  front  of  the  weirs,  to 
prevent  solids  from  flowing  over  into  it. 

From  the  influent  channel  the  sewage  passes  through  gates  into 
the  smaller  or  finishing  tanks,  where  the  finer  particles  are 
deposited.  From  these  tanks  the  clarified  sewage  flows  over  a 
weir  into  the  effluent  channel  and  thence  to  the  creek. 

The  frequency  with  which  the  tanks  require  cleaning  will  depend 
entirely  upon  the  amount  and  foulness  of  the  sewage.  Ordinarily 
the  larger  tanks  require  cleaning  about  three  times  a  week,  or  every 


156 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


other  day,  while  the  smaller  tanks  are  cleaned  once  or  twice  a 
week,  as  may  he  required.  For  this  purpose  the  effluent  water  in 
the  tanks  is  drawn  off  by  means  of  skimming  pipes  placed  at  the 
farther  end,  opposite  the  inlet,  and  leading  into  the  effluent  pipes 
under  the  channels.  It  is  discharged  into  the  creek  at  a  lower 
elevation  than  that  discharged  from  the  effluent  channel. 

The  sludge,  or  what  remains  after  drawing  off  the  upper  clear 
liquid,  is  then  drawn  back  through  special  channels  into  the  main 
sludge  pipes,  leading  into  the  reservoir  located  at  the  end  of  the 
press  house.  From  the  reservoir  the  sludge  is  raised  by  pumps  and 
forced  into  the  presses,  forming  “  sludge  cakes.” 

Experience  shows  that  about  90  per  cent,  of  the  sludge  is  water 
and  the  foul  liquid  which  is  separated  from  it  by  the  process  of 
pressing  needs  to  be  re- treated.  To  accomplish  this,  the  presses  are 
placed  on  a  level  above  the  mixing  channel,  so  that  the  liquid 
coming  from  the  presses  can  run  back  into  it. 

Water  pipes  connected  with  hydrants  and  conveniently  placed, 
should  be  laid  around  the  tanks  so  that  they  can  be  thoroughly 
washed  after  the  sludge  has  been  drawn  out.  The  water  for  this 
purpose  can  be  taken  from  the  effluent  channel  and  pumped  directly 
into  the  pipes  as  needed,  or  a  storage  tank  can  be  built  at  a  suffi¬ 
cient  height  to  give  the  required  pressure. 

The  amount  of  chemicals  required  depends  largely  upon  the 
character  of  the  sewage,  but  it  is  generally  considered  that  8,000 
grains  of  lime  and  2,000  grains  of  sulphate  of  alumina  are  ample  to 
properly  clarify  1,000  gallons  of  average  American  sewage. 

If  the  works  are  carefully  managed  there  need  be  no  nuisance 
about  them,  excepting  at  the  tanks  holding  the  sewage,  and  for 
which  reason  it  is  desirable  to  locate  them  in  a  neighborhood  that 
is  not  populated. 

The  route  of  the  main  collecting  and  intercepting  sewers  is  the 
same  as  for  the  dilution  project  previously  described,  and  shown  in 
detail  upon  the  plan  prepared  for  it. 

If  a  precipitation  plant  is  used  for  temporarily  treating  the 
sewage  which  is  later  to  be  purified  by  filtration,  it  may  be  located 
on  the  south  shore  of  the  Patapsco  Fiver,  east  of  Brooklyn,  or  it 
might  even  be  built  on  unoccupied  land  near  Ferry  Point.  In 
either  case,  the  works  need  not  be  built  as  permanently  as  recom¬ 
mended  for  the  location  at  Colgate  Creek.  The  tanks  could  be  built 
of  creosoted  timber  instead  of  masonry,  and  the  temporary  sewers 
leading  thereto  could  be  made  of  the  same  material.  The  buildings 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


157 


might  also  be  built  of  wood.  The  estimates  of  cost  have  assumed 
timber  to  be  used  for  these  several  structures. 


K 

FILTRATION. 

Sewage  can  be  disposed  of  also  by  filtration.  If  it  is  allowed  to 
run  through  coarse  material,  such  as  broken  stone,  it  will  deposit 
a  large  amount  of  its  suspended  matter  upon  the  stones  and, 
dependent  upon  the  quantity  of  sewage  so  discharged  and  the 
length  of  time  in  which  it  travels  through  this  material,  the  sewage 
will  emerge  more  or  less  purified.  The  stones,  however,  gradually 
become  coated  and  require  replacing. 

For  small  amounts  of  sewage,  such  a  system  of  filtration,  which 
is  little  better  than  a  straining,  will  sometimes  answer.  It  will  not 
answer  for  treating  the  sewage  of  a  large  population,  under  condi¬ 
tions  which  prevail  in  Baltimore.  The  expense  of  properly  pre¬ 
paring  such  a  bed  of  stone,  and  the  attention  which  must  be  given 
to  it  in  its  management,  and  to  its  occasional  replacing,  altogether 
make  such  a  system  of  disposal  not  only  less  perfect,  but  also 
more  expensive  than  other  methods,  which  are  more  extensively 
used  and  which  will  now  be  described. 

When  the  sewage  is  turned  upon  a  porous  soil,  pure  sand  being 
the  best,  it  percolates  through  the  same  more  or  less  rapidly, 
owing  to  the  coarseness  of  the  sand  and  to  the  head  of  sewage 
resting  upon  it.  The  first  result  of  this  percolation  is  a  straining 
out  of  the  coarser  particles.  As  the  water  passes  down,  the  subse¬ 
quent  result  is  to  expose  it  to  the  action  of  bacteria,  which,  directly 
or  indirectly,  accomplishes  the  thorough  oxidation  of  the  sewage 
matter,  so  that,  under  favorable  conditions,  the  escaping  water  at 
the  lowest  point  of  the  filter  will  be  freed  from  the  objectionable 
quantity  of  organic  matter  and  from  the  myriads  of  bacteria  which 
are  found  in  the  raw  sewage. 

The  Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Health,  in  its  admirable  work 
on  the  Purification  of  Water  and  Sewage,  has  demonstrated  the 
favorable  conditions  for  this  purifying  action,  and,  by  a  very  exten¬ 
sive  series  of  experiments  with  different  kinds  of  soils  and  sands, 
has  given  the  profession  a  means  of  judging  what  can  be  accom¬ 
plished,  without  doubt,  by  filtering  sewage  of  a  known  character 
through  a  material  of  a  known  character. 


158 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


It  was  formerly  thought  that  the  best  method  of  disposing  of 
sewage  on  land  was  to  have  it  absorbed  by  vegetation.  This  view 
caused  many  of  the  English  sewage  farms  to:  be  originally  laid  out 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  crop  raising,  and  it  was  held,  for  instance 
in  Croydon,  that  the  water  of  the  sewage  should  either  be  evapo¬ 
rated  from  the  surface  or  taken  up  by  the  crops,  but  not  allowed 
to  percolate  through  the  soil.  Therefore  sub-drainage  was  not 
advocated. 

While  this  process  gave  satisfaction  when  properly  operated,  it 
required  a  very  large  area  of  land  per  thousand  persons.  This 
large  area  was  not  always  obtainable.  In  order  to  use  a  smaller 
area  it  was  found  necessary  to  sub-drain  the  land,  and  thus  to  free 
it  of  the  water  which  had  percolated  into  the  ground.  This  water 
was  found  to  be  comparatively  pure,  and,  in  some  instances,  quite 
pure. 

It  was  then  proposed  in  England  by  Dr.  Frankland  to  purify 
sewage  by  means  of  intermittent  filtration,  by  which  method  the 
purification  was  accomplished,  not  necessarily  through  the  aid  of 
crops,  but  by  the  passage  through  porous  soil.  Intermittency  was 
necessary,  according  to  Dr.  Frankland,  so  that  the  pores,  which  at 
one  time  are  filled  with  sewage,  are  alternately  filled  with  air,  to 
supply  the  oxygen  which  is  necessary  to  finally  accomplish  the  puri¬ 
fication.  Intermittent  filtration  was  first  practically  applied  in 
England,  by  Mr.  Bailey  Denton,  and  its  success  was  assured  nearly 
twenty  years  ago. 

The  recent  experiments  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Board  of 
Health  related  to  intermittent  filtration,  as  it  was  found  that  a 
continuous  filtration  of  sewage  through  sand  was  absolutely  void 
of  satisfactory  results,  the  sand  then  acting  merely  as  a  strainer 
and  the  sewage  escaping  with  its  dissolved  organic  matter  not 
removed. 

We  are  to-day  in  a  position  to  state,  not  only  that  sewage  can  be 
thoroughly  purified  by  filtration  through  porous  soil,  in  percolating 
slowly  and  intermittently  through  it,  but  also  that  the  fields  can  be 
arranged  so  that  crops  may  be  successfully  raised,  while  at  the 
same  time  the  sewage  is  being  purified. 

The  application  of  this  method  is,  of  course,  only  available  where 
the  necessary  area  of  land  of  suitable  quality  can  be  had.  A  search 
on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Patapsco  River  to  discover  such  land 
proved  unavailing.  On  the  western  side,  in  Anne  Arundel  county, 
as  has  already  been  stated  under  Section  0,  there  is  an  abundance 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


159 


of  land  which  is  well  suited  for  the  purification  of  the  sewage  of 
the  City  of  Baltimore.  It  is  shown  on  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey 
Map  which  is  appended,  Plate  M. 

The  distance  to  this  territory  is  not  greater  than  the  distance  to 
a  sewage  outfall  at  North  Point  into  Chesapeake  Bay.  In  fact, 
there  is  a  large  area  of  suitable  land  somewhat  nearer.  Some  of 
the  territory  is  at  present  covered  with  timber  and  some  of  it  is 
under  cultivation. 

With  reference  to  disposing  of  sewage  on  land,  it  should  be  stated 
that  no  nuisance  need  arise  from  the  same.  When  delivered  from 
a  well-managed  sewerage  system  it  is  supposed  to  be  comparatively 
fresh,  and  should  have  but  a  slight  odor.  But,  even  if  it  has  an 
odor  when  delivered  upon  the  fields,  it  is  found  that  after  it  has 
been  distributed  and  has  filtered  away  there  is  practically  but 
little,  if  any,  offense. 

From  the  samples  of  soil  taken  from  the  proposed  filtration  areas 
at  Glen  Burnie,  it  will  be  safe  to  estimate,  according  to  the  locality, 
for  a  disposal  of  from  10,000  to  25,000  gallons  of  sewage  per  acre 
per  day,  without  stripping  off  the  top  soil.  If  it  is  all  taken  off  and 
only  sand  remains  to  receive  the  sewage,  this  area  will  probably 
purify  from  30,000  to  50,000  gallons  per  acre  per  day.  The  territory 
north  of  Furnace  Creek  is  on  the  average  not  as  good  as  the  area 
south  of  it.  It  would  be  well  to  assume  the  lower  of  the  above 
figures  for  it. 

Assuming  that  500  acres  are  available  north  of  the  Creek,  we 
can  therefore  dispose  upon  it  15,000,000  or  5,000,000  gallons  daily, 
according  to  whether  the  top  soil  is  removed  or  not. 

Assuming  that  south  of  Furnace  Creek  there  are  1,000  acres 
available,  we  could  on  the  average  dispose  of  40,000,000,  or  15,000,- 
000  gallons  of  sewage  daily,  according  to  whether  the  top  soil  is 
taken  off  or  not. 

There  are  large  areas  of  timber  land,  some  orchards  and  some 
marsh  land  on  this  territory,  some  of  which  can  be  made  available 
if  necessary,  as  beneath  a  surface  layer  of  from  6  to  12  inches  in 
depth  coarse  sandy  soil  is  found. 

The  Elvaton  filtration  area  comprises  the  territory  of  Marley 
Neck  and  Tick  Neck  and  other  lands  down  to  Magothy  River.  It 
is  better  adapted  for  sewage  filtration,  because  the  sand  is  almost 
free  from  loam.  We  think  it  will  purify  about  25,000  gallons  of 
sewage  per  day  without  stripping,  and  perhaps  as  much  as  50,000 
with  stripping. 


160 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


There  are  about  8,000  acres  available  on  this  territory.  After  a 
thorough  preparation  and  removal  of  the  surface  layers  of  soil,  the 
Elvaton  area  may  therefore  take  as  much  as  350,000,000  gallons 
of  sewage  daily. 

From  the  above  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  within  a  reasonable 
distance  of  Baltimore  a  large  territory  available  for  the  purification 
of  sewage.  In  fact,  there  may  be  as  many  as  10,000  acres  obtain¬ 
able  above  the  Magothy  Biver,  which  altogether  would  answer  for 
purifying  the  sewage  of  more  than  two  millions  of  people.  Both 
the  cities  of  Paris  and  Berlin  are  obliged  to  carry  some  of  their 
sewage  further  off  before  proper  territory  for  purification  is 
reached. 

The  Glen  Burnie  area  is  shown  on  one  of  the  maps,  Plate  H, 
together  with  a  general  outline  of  the  way  in  which  it  can  be 
adapted  for  sewage  filtration. 

In  order  to  get  the  best  results,  the  ground  must  be  stripped  and 
freed  from  the  top  layer  of  soil.  A  proper  system  of  distributing 
the  sewage  should  be  laid  out  so  as  to  utilize  the  ground  at  all  times 
to  the  best  advantage. 

The  ground  of  each  bed,  which  should  contain  about  one  acre, 
should  be  leveled,  and  generally  provided  with  ridges  and  furrows 
so  that  the  sewage  may  flow  over  it  uniformly  and  not  accumulate 
at  some  low  point  which  would  overcharge  a  portion,  while  another 
portion  receives  an  insufficient  quantity.  The  ground  must  also 
be  thoroughly  under-drained,  because  the  water,  after  percolating 
through  the  sand,  must  be  rapidly  removed  in  order  to  permit  of 
a  proper  intermittent  aeration,  and  thereby  secure  the  maximum 
duty. 

Before  the  sewage  is  allowed  to  spread  over  the  fields,  it  may  be 
advisable,  and  it  is  sometimes  necessary,  to  screen  it  so  that  there 
will  be  less  deposit  upon  the  fields.  Occasionally  it  is  even  advis¬ 
able  to  allow  much  of  the  heavier  matter  to  deposit  in  tanks  before 
the  sewage  is  turned  upon  the  fields.  A  larger  quantity  can  then  be 
filtered  per  acre  of  ground.  But  this  expedient  will  probably  not  be 
necessary  in  this  case,  as  there  is  no  scarcity  of  land. 

Begarding  the  raising  of  crops  and  operating  a  sewage  farm, 
it  is  best  to  start  tentatively  and  to  ascertain  the  best  methods  of 
cultivation  and  management  for  the  local  conditions  existing  in 
your  neighborhood.  Some  crops  do  better  than  others.  Some  will 
use  up  more  sewage  than  others.  Some  are  more  profitable  and 
find  a  more  ready  market  than  others. 


FOE  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMOEE 


161 


Vegetables  should  be  grown  upon  ridges  and  protected  from  a 
direct  contact  with  sewage,  just  as  it  is  undesirable  to  bring  them 
in  direct  contact  with  manure. 

Ensilage  is  meeting  with  success  in  Europe,  and  if  you  find  it 
practicable  and  economical  to  raise  large  crops  of  grass,  it  would 
be  well  to  experiment  with  regard  to  preserving  the  grass  in  the 
manner  which  is  profitable  in  England. 

Well-managed  sewage  farms  do  not  create  a  nuisance.  Resi¬ 
dences  of  well-to-do  people  are  found  in  the  neighborhood  of  such 
farms  in  England,  and  in  a  few  instances  also  on  the  continent  of 
Europe.  In  Berlin  there  are  several  homes  for  convalescents  from 
hospitals  in  the  midst  of  the  sewage  farms,  and  some  other  similar 
institutions  are  intended  to  be  placed  there.  The  death  rate  on 
large  English  sewage  farms,  according  to  Baldwin  Latham7  in  1880, 
was  but  three  per  thousand.  On  the  Paris  and  Berlin  farms  it  is 
similarly  low.  In  the  City  of  Baltimore  it  is  now  over  twenty  per 
thousand. 

Fish  breed  freely  in  the  effluent  water  from  the  Paris  and  Berlin 
and  the  best  English  sewage  farms. 

The  manner  in  which  the  sewage  of  the  city  may  be  collected 
and  delivered  at  the  disposal  areas  is  shown  on  the  plans.  The 
Glen  Burnie  area  is  about  six  miles  from  Ferry  Point  and  the 
Elvaton  area  is  about  ten  miles  from  the  same.  The  elevation 
at  which  the  sewage  can  be  distributed  on  the  nearer  territory  is 
55  feet  and  on  the  farther  territory  80  feet  above  datum. 

It  is  desirable,  of  course,  to  deliver  as  much  sewage  as  possible 
upon  these  areas  by  gravity.  We  find  that  about  one-third  of  the 
assumed  population,  namely,  about  365,000  persons,  will  eventually 
reside  upon  territory  which  is  sufficiently  high  to  deliver  its  sewage 
upon  the  Glen  Burnie  area  by  gravity.  It  is  not  practicable  to 
deliver  any  of  the  city’s  sewage  at  Elvaton  by  gravity. 

At  Glen  Burnie  there  are  about  1,400  acres  upon  which  sewage 
may  be  purified,  about  200  acres  of  which  lie  west  of  the  discharge 
mains.  Therefore,  if  we  estimate  an  acre  to  purify  40,000  gallons 
per  day,  the  Glen  Burnie  territory  is  just  about  sufficient  to  receive 
the  sewage  that  can  eventually  be  delivered  by  gravity.  The 
sewage  of  the  remainder  of  the  population  will  have  to  be  pumped 
and  eventually  delivered  on  the  higher  Elvaton  area. 

Until  the  population  of  the  city  discharging  its  sewage  into  the 
system  exceeds  about  350,000  persons,  all  of  it  can  be  delivered  to 
Glen  Burnie,  which  will  postpone  the  preparation  of  the  higher 


1G2 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


area  for  a  number  of  years,  and  also  the  laying  of  the  separate 
discharge  mains  leading  to  it. 

We  therefore  advise  that  the  Glen  Burnie  area  be  prepared  first, 
and  that  it  be  used  for  all  sewage  delivered  until  its  full  capacity 
has  been  reached,  and  thereafter  that  the  Elvaton  area  be  pre¬ 
pared. 

The  method  of  collecting  and  delivering  the  sewage  upon  the  fil¬ 
tration  areas  will  be  described  further  on. 


L 

COMPARISON. 

In  making  a  comparison  between  the  above-mentioned  three 
possible  methods  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  the  City  of  Balti¬ 
more,  we  should  consider  the  preference  both  for  future  and  for 
present  conditions. 

The  methods  of  disposal  are  the  discharge  of  crude  sewage  into 
the  deep  water  of  Chesapeake  Bay,  the  discharge  of  clarified  sewage 
into  the  Patapsco  River  and  eventually  into  Chesapeake  Bay  near 
the  shore,  and  the  purification  of  sewage  by  filtration  in  Anne 
Arundel  county. 

The  difference  in  cost  between  these  methods  is  in  our  opinion 
not  sufficient  to  decide  the  question  of  preference.  We  believe  that 
it  should  be  decided  upon  other  grounds. 

When  we  consider  that  there  is  a  practical  way  of  quickly  and 
thoroughly  purifying  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  without  creating  a 
nuisance,  and  at  the  same  time  utilizing  it  for  irrigating  lands 
which  to-day  have  but  a  small  value  for  agriculture;  when  we  con¬ 
sider  that  a  discharge  of  crude  sewage  into  Chesapeake  Bay  does 
not  at  once  effectually  dispose  of  it,  but  allows  it  to  oscillate  with 
the  tides  in  the  navigable  waters  and  over  present  oyster  beds 
before  it  is  thoroughly  dispersed ;  finally,  when  we  consider  that  the 
effluent  from  a  precipitation  plant  is  but  clarified  and  not  purified 
sewage,  and  that  there  is  insufficient  flow  in  the  Patapsco  River  to 
properly  dilute  it  when  the  city  has  grown  to  about  double  its 
present  size;  we  have  no  hesitation  whatever  in  recommending  the 
purification  of  the  sewage  upon  the  sandy  territory  in  Anne  Arundel 
county,  as  the  best  solution  of  the  problem  for  all  time. 

We  consider  the  city,  in  fact,  to  be  unusually  fortunate  in  posses¬ 
sing  sufficient  suitable  territory  so  near  its  limits.  There  is  hardly 
another  large  city  in  the  country  which  is  equally  favored  in  this 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


163 


respect.  No  experiment  will  be  made  in  thus  disposing  of  the 
sewage,  as  experience  has  been  obtained  in  thus  dealing  with  it 
for  nearly  half  a  century.  From  Berlin  and  Paris,  which  have 
the  largest  sewage  filtration  fields,  down  to  the  many  smaller  cities 
in  England,  and  also  in  several  cities  and  towns  of  our  own  country, 
the  process  has  been  tried  and  developed  so  that  it  is  quite  safe  to 
predict  the  results  obtainable  under  given  conditions,  and  to  prevent 
any  possible  failure.  To  reach  a  successful  result  it  is  merely 
necessary  to  apply  existing  and  obtainable  knowledge  to  the  prepa¬ 
ration  of  the  filtration  fields  and  to  their  subsequent  operation. 

We  feel  certain  that  the  purification  of  sewage  by  land  filtration 
will  be  found  a  far  more  satisfactory  disposal  in  your  case,  than 
either  the  partial  purification  by  chemical  means,  or  the  crude 
disposal  into  the  Bay.  Filtration  is  likely  to  settle  the  question  for 
all  time,  just  as  it  has  so  been  settled  in  many  other  cities,  while 
with  the  less  perfect  purification,  future  trouble  is  apt  to  arise  in 
your  case,  pointing  to  the  possibility  of  eventually  changing  the 
method  and  incurring  further  expense. 

While  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  a  disposal  by  filtration  is  the 
best  method  for  your  city  to  adopt  in  the  future,  we  believe  it  is 
also  best  at  first.  The  crude  disposal  system  requires  at  once  the 
construction  of  a  large  outfall  sewer  to  North  Point.  It  would 
have  to  be  built  of  a  capacity  answering  for  a  distant  future,  which 
capacity  would  therefore  not  be  required  for  a  long  time.  The 
precipitation  plant  could  be  built  with  a  small  capacity  at  first,  but 
there  remain  the  other  facts  that  the  sewage  is  merely  clarified  and 
not  purified,  and  that  no  use  can  be  made  of  the  effluent  water. 
The  filtration  system  at  once  purifies  the  sewage  and  utilizes  it  for 
irrigation.  It  need  be  laid  out  at  present  only  sufficiently  exten¬ 
sive  for  the  quantity  of  sewage  which  it  is  to  receive.  Its  area  can 
be  increased  gradually,  which  thus  avoids  a  large  investment  of 
money  at  the  outset.  A  further  reduction  in  the  first  outlay  could 
be  made  by  a  temporary  chemical  treatment  along  the  western 
shore  of  the  Patapsco  Biver.  The  expense  of  the  discharge  mains 
to  the  filtration  fields  and  the  cost  of  preparing  the  latter,  would 
be  saved  until  the  precipitation  sj^stem  had  reached  its  capacity. 

After  having  presented  our  conclusions,  which  advocate  a  final 
disposal  of  the  sewage  by  filtration  in  Anne  Arundel  county,  it  is 
now  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  methods  to  be  adopted  for  collect¬ 
ing  the  sewage  from  the  city  and  delivering  it  at  the  proposed 
fields. 


164 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


M 

METHODS  OF  COLLECTION. 

There  are  in  use  several  methods  by  which  sewage  can  be  col¬ 
lected  in  a  city  and  taken  out  of  the  same.  In  every  case  there 
are,  of  course,  pipes  or  sewers  which  conduct  the  sewage  from  the 
houses  to  the  street,  and  then  along  the  streets  to  a  pumping  station 
or  to  an  outfall.  As  the  rain-water  must  usually  be  carried  otf  in 
a  similar  manner,  it  has  been  found  economical  in  large  cities  to 
carry  the  sewage  and  rain-water  together  in  the  same  channels. 
This  is  done  with  the  so-called  combined  system. 

There  are  cases,  however,  where  it  is  not  economical  to  build 
sewers  to  carry  off  both  these  waters.  In  smaller  cities  it  is  cus¬ 
tomary  to  allow  the  rain-water  to  run  off  on  the  surface  of  the 
streets,  so  far  as  practicable,  as  such  surface  removal  usually  does 
not  interfere  with  traffic,  nor  is  it  otherwise  objectionable,  and  it 
saves  the  expense  of  large  sewers.  In  such  cases,  the  sewage  alone 
is  taken  away  in  pipes,  and  not  mingled  with  the  rain-water.  This 
is  usually  called  the  separate  system. 

There  are  still  other  conditions  where  this  system  is  preferable. 
Where  it  is  necessary,  for  instance,  to  pump  the  sewage,  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  rain-water  necessitates  a  much  larger  plant  for  pumping, 
much  of  which  is  in  use  onlv  during  storms.  In  almost  all  cases 
it  is  possible  to  allow  rain-water  to  run  off  by  gravity  into  natural 
watercourses,  and  therefore  to  avoid  pumping.  To  combine  it 
with  sewage  when  the  latter  requires  to  be  lifted,  is  usually  not 
economical. 

Again,  where  it  is  necessary  to  give  the  sewage  some  treatment, 
i.  c.,  to  purify  it  either  by  the  chemical  or  the  land  treatment,  it 
will  be  evident  that  if  rain-water  is  admitted  to  the  sewers,  a  much 
larger  quantity  of  water  must  be  dealt  with,  and  therefore  the 
expense  of  treatment  is  materially  increased. 

When  a  combined  system  is  used,  it  is  however  always  understood 
that,  when  sewage  is  either  pumped  or  treated,  all  of  the  rain-water 
is  not  subjected  to  this  handling.  There  are  overflows  provided 
in  the  sewers  which  allow  any  excessive  storms  to  discharge  their 
water  into  natural  watercourses.  The  water  of  slight  rains  only 
is  allowed  to  remain  with  the  sewage,  and  it  is  usually  proper  to 
allow  this  quantity  of  water  to  be  about  double  the  greatest  flow 
of  sewage. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


165 


The  admission  of  rain-water  to  this  extent  has  frequently  been 
advocated,  because  the  first  wash  from  the  streets  contains  a  good 
deal  of  waste  organic  matter.  Where  a  pollution  of  the  water¬ 
course,  due  to  such  washing  of  the  street  surfaces,  is  objectionable, 
it  is  proper  to  have  the  rain-water  disposed  of  in  such  a  manner. 

In  some  cities  a  provision  for  rain-water  removal  has  been  made 
and  drains  have  been  built  before  the  question  of  sewage  disposal 
became  urgent  and  demanded  a  solution.  If  such  drains  are  fairly 
good  and  of  sufficient  capacity  to  take  care  of  the  rain-water,  then, 
when  the  removal  also  of  foul  water  is  required,  it  is  usually  found 
best,  for  economical  reasons,  to  adopt  the  separate  system. 


N 

SEPARATE  SYSTEM. 

The  City  of  Baltimore  being  provided  with  drains  to  a  large 
extent  and  at  a  great  cost,  and  most  of  such  drains  being  fairly 
well  built  and  efficient  for  their  purpose,  is  one  of  those  cities  in 
which  the  separate  or  double  system  is  preferable. 

It  may  be  added  that  some  years  ago  it  was  urged  that  a  separate 
system  was  preferable  in  all  cities,  from  a  sanitary  point  of  view, 
and  that  it  should  be  introduced  in  all  large  cities,  even  if  it 
required  a  complete  double  system,  one  for  sewage  alone,  and  the 
other  for  rainfall  alone.  The  arguments  then  made  have,  however, 
not  been  substantiated  by  facts,  because  it  was  found  that  the 
cities  which  had  a  combined  system,  well  built  and  carefully  man¬ 
aged,  generally  had  a  lower  death  rate  than  before  such  systems 
were  introduced,  and  that  other  cities,  adopting  a  separate  system 
of  sewerage  had  no  lower  death  rate,  and,  in  at  least  one  instance, 
even  a  higher  rate  than  in  cities  where  the  other  system  was  in  use. 

There  is  no  reason,  either  theoretical  or  practical,  why  a  sepa¬ 
rate  system  should  be  preferable  from  a  sanitary  point  of  view', 
and,  therefore,  the  question  of  preference  between  the  two  systems 
should  always  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  cost.  In  Europe  Ave  find 
the  separate  system  in  use  only  in  a  few  English  cities.  In 
America  it  is  used  more  frequently,  and,  therefore,  the  experience 
gained  with  it  here  has  been  greater.  There  are  no  large  cities 
Avhere  it  is  as  yet  used,  however.  The  City  of  New  Orleans  has 
adopted  it,  and  the  system  is  under  construction,  but  not  yet  in  use. 


1G6 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Tlie  conditions  existing  in  Baltimore  are  peculiar,  and  different 
from  most  other  cities  as  regards  the  sewerage  question,  and  there¬ 
fore  it  is  necessary  to  examine  it  carefully  and  independently. 

The  existence  of  an  expensive  system  of  drains  for  rain-water 
removal,  the  necessity  for  treating  the  sewage,  as  has  already  been 
stated,  and  also  the  necessity  for  pumping  most  of  the  sewage  of  the 
city,  argue  for  the  adoption  of  the  separate  system  more  strongly 
than  in  any  other  large  city  in  the  United  States  which  has  not  yet 
been  provided  with  a  modern  system  of  sewers. 

It  may  be  mentioned  here  that  Mr.  Charles  H.  Latrobe,  C.  E.,  in 
his  able  report  upon  the  sewerage  question  in  the  City  of  Baltimore 
in  1881,  recommended  the  separate  system. 

There  is  a  certain  flexibility  in  such  a  system,  as  regards  the 
admission  of  rain-water.  In  England,  where  it  is  used  in  a  number 
of  smaller  cities,  it  has  been  urged  that  a  portion  of  the  rain-water 
should  be  admitted  for  the  purpose  of  flushing  the  pipes.  It  is 
there  customary  to  allow  the  rain-water  falling  upon  the  back  roof 
of  the  house,  and  sometimes  also  that  falling  upon  the  back  yard, 
to  enter  the  separate  sewers.  The  advantage  of  this  custom  lies  in 
the  fact  that  the  increased  flow  through  the  sewers  gives  an  admira¬ 
ble  flush.  The  water  entering  at  all  their  heads  simultaneously, 
causes  a  flush,  not  only  of  the  laterals,  but  also  of  the  main  sewers. 

In  England  the  rainfalls  are  not  as  intense  as  they  are  in  this 
country,  and  a  provision  to  admit  their  water  as  described,  there¬ 
fore,  does  not  require  such  a  large  additional  capacity  as  would  be 
necessary  in  Baltimore.  In  the  United  States,  it  has  been  practiced 
in  many  cases,  to  admit  only  roof  water  for  the  above  purposes, 
and  it  has  been  found  to  be  an  advantage  whenever  the  arrange¬ 
ments  have  been  proper. 

,  The  difficulties  to  be  met  are  in  the  limitation  of  the  amount  of 
water  which  thus  enters  the  sewers  from  each  house,  and  also  in  the 
limitation  regarding  the  number  of  houses  allowed  to  discharge 
their  roof  water  into  the  sewers.  It  is  evident  that  the  advantage 
to  the  system  is  obtained  only  from  the  water  admitted  near  the 
heads,  and  that  the  roof  water  lower  down  in  the  system  should 
be  excluded.  As  such  a  discrimination  is  not  always  practicable, 
it  is  also  customary  to  accomplish  the  same  end  by  flush  tanks, 
usually  placed  at  the  heads  of  the  lateral  sewers,  and  discharged 
either  automatically  or  by  hand. 

The  advantage  to  be  expected  from  flushing  the  upper  ends  of 
the  sewers  is  the  removal  of  deposits,  due  to  the  fact  that  the 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


167 


sewage  flow  is  not  only  slight,  but  also  intermittent,  and  therefore 
permits  such  deposits  to  form.  Lower  down  in  the  system,  after 
receiving  the  sewage  from  many  laterals,  there  is  a  constant  flow, 
and  if  the  sewer  is  designed  to  cause  a  sufficient  velocity  and  a 
proper  sectional  area,  deposits  are  not  usual,  and  are  due  only  to 
an  extraordinary  occurrence,  which  makes  it  necessary  to  remove 
the  deposit  or  obstruction  by  special  means. 

It  remains  now  to  describe  the  principal  features  of  the  sewerage 
system  as  recommended  to  you;  to  follow  it  with  a  description  of 
a  drainage  system  for  the  city,  and  to  conclude  with  an  estimate 
of  cost. 


o 

PRINCIPAL  SEWERS  AND  DISTRICTS. 

The  methods  of  disposal  recommended,  being  a  filtration  upon 
land  in  Anne  Arundel  county,  it  is  necessary  to  collect  the  sewage 
and  deliver  it  to  this  land  in  the  most  economical  manner. 

As  already  mentioned,  the  elevation  of  part  of  the  area  that  can 
be  used,  is  sufficiently  low,  so  that  some  of  the  sewage  can  be 
delivered  there  by  gravity.  It  is,  therefore,  economical  to  divide 
the  city  by  a  high  level  intercepting  sewer,  collecting  all  the  sewage 
which  can  flow  by  gravity  to  this  area. 

As  a  large  portion  of  the  territory  over  which  the  sewage  is 
taken  to  the  disposal  area  lies  below  the  hydraulic  gradient,  it  must 
be  carried  in  pipes  under  pressure. 

The  remaining  part  of  the  city,  lying  below  this  gradient  must 
have  its  sewage  collected  by  a  low  level  interceptor,  situated  as 
near  to  the  shore  line  of  the  river  as  possible.  Owing  to  difficulties 
of  construction  and  expense,  there  will  be  some  small  areas  along 
the  water  front  that  cannot  discharge  into  the  interceptor  without 
special  pumping,  but  may  discharge  into  the  river.  As  the  amount 
of  sewage  is  small,  it  cannot  be  objectionable  in  the  harbor,  when 
compared  with  the  pollution  caused  by  the  shipping  interests. 

After  some  study,  it  was  found  best  to  locate  the  lowest  point  at 
which  the  sewage  of  the  low  level  interceptor  is  collected  near  the 
intersection  of  Leadenhall  and  Stockholm  streets.  This  point  is 
convenient  for  collecting  the  sewage,  and  for  receiving  coal,  and  is 
therefore  a  suitable  location  for  a  pumping  station,  where  the 
sewage  can  be  forced  into  the  discharge  mains  leading  to  the  filtra¬ 
tion  fields. 


168 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


As  the  amount  of  sewage  to  be  collected  in  the  high  level  inter¬ 
ceptor  will,  for  a  long  time,  be  comparatively  small,  and  as  a  large 
portion  of  the  population  resides  at  an  elevation  which  is  much 
above  that  through  which  the  low  level  interceptor  is  carried,  it 
has  appeared  that  a  mid-level  or  intermediate  interceptor  might  be 
an  economical  feature  of  the  system.  It  would  prevent  a  large 
portion  of  the  sewage  from  flowing  down  to  the  lowest  point  to  be 
again  raised  by  pumps. 

A  general  location  for  such  an  intermediate  interceptor  was 
made,  and  also  a  calculation  to  determine  whether  there  would  be 
economy  in  its  adoption.  The  result  showed  that  the  mid-level 
interceptor  project  did  not  save  expense. 

An  advantage  would  be  its  temporary  use  for  collecting  the 
sewage  from  the  high  level  territory,  thus  for  a  while  saving  the 
building  of  the  high  level  interceptor.  This  advantage,  however, 
was  not  material. 

A  disadvantage,  on  the  other  hand,  was  found  in  a  greater  com¬ 
plication  of  the  works  at  the  pumping  station,  due  to  a  separate  set 
of  engines,  and  in  the  necessity  of  increasing  the  initial  outlay  for 
the  system,  while  without  it  it  is  only  necessary  to  pay  annually  a 
sum  for  pumping  the  sewage  to  the  additional  height. 

For  present  needs  it  is  unquestionably  cheaper  to  pump  the 
smaller  quantity  of  sewage  obtained  from  the  higher  territory,  than 
to  build  the  mid-level  interceptor  at  a  cost  which  is  intended  to 
provide  for  the  population  of  the  future.  Pumping  machinery  is 
continually  being  improved,  reducing  the  cost  of  pumping  so  that 
it  is  rather  probable  than  otherwise  that  the  economy  now  apparent 
for  pumping  the  sewage  will  become  still  greater. 

It  should  be  added  here  that  a  mid-level  interceptor  may  form 
a  means,  in  the  distant  future,  of  increasing  the  capacity  of  the 
sewerage  system  of  the  city  upon  the  area  it  now  occupies,  in 
case  such  increase  should  ever  be  necessary.  It  is  impossible  to 
foresee  the  precise  development  of  a  city,  and  if,  in  many  years, 
the  low  level  interceptor  should  be  found  too  small  to  do  the  work 
which  with  present  foresight  may  be  expected  from  it,  then,  without 
interfering  in  any  way  with  the  use  of  works  that  are  now  built,  it 
would  be  more  practicable  to  add  a  mid-level  interceptor  than  at 
the  present  time.  We  therefore  do  not  recommend  its  construction. 

The  entire  area  of  the  city  has  been  divided  into  separate  and 
distinct  sewerage  districts,  some  of  which  have  their  sewage  dis¬ 
charged  into  the  upper  and  others  into  the  lower  interceptor.  The 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


169 


boundaries  of  these  districts  are  shown  upon  the  plan,  Plate  G.  In 
each  one  the  sewage  is  generally  collected  by  district  main  sewers 
which  eventually  discharge  into  the  respective  interceptors. 

These  districts  are  usually  identical  with  the  natural  drainage 
areas.  Towards  the  northeast  there  is  one,  the  Herring  Run  dis¬ 
trict,  which  naturally  does  not  drain  into  the  Patapsco  River,  and 
from  which  the  sewage  must  be  intercepted  in  order  to  be  united 
with  the  rest  of  the  sewage  of  the  city. 

The  boundaries  of  the  districts  as  marked  can,  of  course,  only  be 
approximate,  and  will  have  to  be  adjusted  later  when  the  details 
of  the  system  are  elaborated.  The  alignment  of  the  intercepting 
and  main  district  sewers,  as  marked  upon  the  maps,  is  likewise  only 
approximate  and  will  require  further  adjustment. 

The  route  of  the  high  level  interceptors  is  as  follows : 

From  the  intersection  of  Eutaw  and  Franklin  streets,  where  the 
interceptor  discharges  into  gravity  discharge  mains  which  lead  to 
the  filtration  fields,  the  eastern  interceptor  extends  in  a  northerly 
direction  to  the  intersection  of  Mount  Royal  avenue  and  McMechen 
street.  It  then  crosses  the  valley  of  Jones’  Falls  by  means  of  a 
pair  of  inverted  siphons.  These  siphons  cross  in  a  tunnel  suffi¬ 
ciently  below  the  level  of  Jones’  Falls  so  as  to  be  in  rock.  They 
consist  of  iron  pipes  carried  down  the  shaft,  through  the  tunnel  and 
up  again  in  a  shaft  at  21st  street  (Plate  J).  It  is  better  to  carry 
the  sewage  across  in  special  pipes  than  in  a  brick-lined  tilnnel 
itself.  In  the  latter  case  there  would  be  too  small  a  velocity  at 
first,  owing  to  the  large  sectional  area,  and  if  reduced  in  area  the 
necessary  velocity  in  the  future  would  consume  too  much  head. 
The  tunnel  may  be  used  also  for  other  purposes.  From  the  siphon 
the  interceptor  continues  on  21st  street  to  Hargrove  alley,  thence 
on  North  avenue  and  Barclay  street  to  20th  street.  It  crosses  the 
Jenkins  Run  valley  by  another  pair  of  inverted  siphons  and  then 
takes  a  southerly  route  on  Ensor  street  to  Hoffman  and  Preston 
streets.  At  Caroline  street  it  again  turns  north  and,  as  shown  on 
the  plan,  reaches  North  avenue  at  Broadway,  near  which  it  ter¬ 
minates.  It  can  receive  the  sewage  from  practically  all  of  the 
territory  lying  between  it  and  the  southwestern  boundary  of  the 
Herring  Run  district. 

There  is  a  small  area  in  the  Jenkins  Run  valley,  north  of  North 
avenue,  from  which  the  sewage  cannot  be  taken  into  the  high 
level  interceptor.  This  sewage  will  have  to  be  carried  south  of 
North  avenue  and  discharged  into  a  low  district  sewer  along  Jones’ 
Falls  which  discharges  into  the  low  level  interceptor. 


170 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  sewer  lias  been  given  a  gradient  so  as  to  secure  a  mean 
velocity  of  three  feet  per  second,  east  of  Jones’  Falls,  and  a  velocity 
of  four  feet  per  second  west  of  Jones’  Falls. 

It  may  be  possible,  when  working  up  the  details  of  the  system, 
to  slightly  lower  this  eastern  high  level  interceptor  and  thereby 
decrease  the  length  of  the  siphons  across  Jenkins  Run. 

The  western  high  level  interceptor,  beginning  at  the  intersection 
of  Eutaw  street  and  Druid  Hill  avenue,  extends,  as  shown  on  the 
plan,  with  many  changes  of  direction  which  are  necessitated  by  the 
topography  and  the  layout  of  the  streets,  to  the  intersection  of  Pratt 
street  and  Fulton  avenue.  It  is  located  on  Pratt  street  for  several 
blocks  and  at  Pulaski  street  extends  in  a  northwesterly  direction 
into  the  valley  of  Gwynn’s  Run,  which  it  ascends  and  terminates 
where  its  gradient  strikes  the  level  of  the  run. 

This  interceptor  will  receive  all  the  sewage  north  of  it  and  from 
both  sides  of  Gwynn’s  Run  valley  north  of  the  crossing  of  the 
Baltimore  and  Potomac  Railroad. 

As  it  is  uncertain  whether  it  will  be  desirable  in  the  future  to 
discharge  the  sewers,  built  in  Gwynn’s  Falls  valley,  into  the  high 
level  or  into  the  low  level  interceptor,  or  into  neither,  both  of  them 
are  made  large  enough  to  receive  the  sewage  from  such  territory. 
The  increase  of  size  is  inconsiderable. 

The  district  mains  of  the  upper  system  should  naturally  be  carried 
down  through  the  lowest  part  of  the  area.  In  many  of  them  the 
streets  are  not  yet  laid  out,  so  that  no  attempt  was  made  to  suggest 
the  lines  upon  the  plan. 

As  Druid  Hill  Park  extends  to  the  western  side  of  Jones’  Falls 
valley,  and  as  between  it  and  the  crossing  of  the  high  level  inter¬ 
ceptor  practically  no  sewage  will  have  to  be  disposed  of,  it  is 
deemed  sufficient  to  place  a  main  district  sewer  only  on  the  eastern 
side  of  Jones’  Falls.  At  Woodberry  a  branch  can  be  carried  across 
the  Falls  to  a  district  which  drams  towards  it. 

There  is  a  large  quarry  below  the  mouth  of  Stony  Run  and  also 
other  features  which  require  a  detailed  study  to  determine  the 
exact  line  along  which  this  district  sewer  can  be  carried  to  the 
high  level  interceptor.  If  unexpected  difficulties  should  arise,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  at  least  temporarily  discharge  it  into  the  low 
level  system.  There  are  no  streets  available  upon  which  to  place 
this  sewer,  and  its  location  will  therefore  largely  be  a  matter  of 
procuring  a  right  of  way.  It  will  be  necessary  to  cross  Stony  Run 
with  an  inverted  siphon. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


171 


The  route  of  the  low  level  interceptors  is  as  follows : 

From  the  pumping  station  at  Stockholm  and  Leadenhall  streets 
the  eastern  low  level  sewer  extends  on  Leadenhall  to  Montgomery 
and  thence  to  Charles  street.  It  follows  Charles  street  northerly 
to  Balderston  street  and  thence  takes  an  easterly  course  on  different 
streets,  as  shown  upon  the  plan,  to  Jones’  Falls,  which  it  crosses 
by  inverted  siphons.  It  then  takes  the  most  available  course  to 
reach  the  intersection  of  Aliceanna  street  and  Boston  street,  along 
which  it  skirts  the  Northwest  Branch  to  Clinton  street,  the  first 
street  east  of  the  city  line.  On  Boston  street  it  crosses  under  the 
Harford  Run  Intercepting  Drain  by  means  of  inverted  siphons. 

From  Clinton  street  this  low  level  interceptor  can  be  carried, 
as  shown  upon  the  plan,  to  Eighth  street,  thence  northerly  so  as 
to  cross  the  valley  of  Gorsuch  Creek  at  Bank  street.  From  this 
street  it  is  practicable  to  continue  the  interceptor  northerly  with  a 
fairly  direct  line  so  as  to  intercept  the  sewage  from  the  Herring 
Run  district.  From  Bank  street  it  is  also  practicable  to  extend  the 
low  level  interceptor  so  as  to  collect  a  large  portion  of  sewage 
naturally  draining  into  the  valleys  of  both  Gorsuch  and  Colgate 
Creeks  as  likewise  shown  upon  the  plan. 

The  area  lying  below  the  territory  thus  intercepted,  and  wliich 
at  present  lies  outside  of  the  city,  in  Canton,  can  in  the  future  have 
its  sewage  conducted  to  a  special  pumping  station  situated  at  Gor¬ 
such  Creek,  and  pumped  into  the  above-mentioned  low  level  inter¬ 
ceptor.  When  computing  the  size  an  allowance  has  been  made  for 
this  contingency. 

It  is  too  early  to  suggest  any  definite  project  for  collecting  the 
sewage  from  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  city  which  naturally 
drains  into  Herring  Run.  The  territory  is  as  yet  undeveloped. 
Should  it  require  sewerage,  there  are  two  possible  ways  of  treating 
this  area.  The  separate  system  should,  of  course,  be  adopted, 
because  the  sewage  should  be  discharged  into  the  general  system 
of  the  city,  while  the  storm  water  should  flow  into  Herring  Run. 

It  is  practicable  to  collect  the  sewage  of  this  area  and  to  pump 
it  from  the  lowest  point  into  the  high  level  interceptor  on  North 
avenue.  It  is  also  practicable  to  collect  it  at  a  low  point  and 
discharge  it  by  a  gravity  sewer  into  the  low  level  interceptor.  The 
latter  solution  is  indicated  on  the  plans.  From  the  fact  that  the 
territory  has  not  yet  been  improved,  we  are  obliged  to  limit  our 
suggestions  to  these  alternate  and  general  solutions  of  the  problem. 

Owing  to  the  uncertainty  of  how  it  will  be  found  best  to  treat  this 


172 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


«  1 


area,  we  have  made  allowance  for  sufficient  capacity  to  receive  its 
sewage,  both  in  the  eastern  high  level  and  low  level  interceptors. 

The  western  low  level  interceptor  begins  at  the  pumping  station, 
extends  out  Stockholm  to  Russell  street,  and  thence  out  Russell  to 
Putnam  street.  At  this  point  it  branches.  One  branch  extends 
southerly,  crosses  Gwynn’s  Falls  and  intercepts  the  sewage  from 
the  territory  lying  south  of  it,  which  though  not  within  the  city 
limits  to-day,  may  be  eventually  annexed  and  require  facilities  for 
sewage  disposal.  The  other  branch  extends  northwesterly  on  the 
best  available  line  to  the  mouth  of  Gwynn’s  Run.  It  can  then 
be  continued  to  the  valley  of  Gwynn’s  Falls,  as  indicated  upon  the 
plan. 

The  Bush  street  drain  which  crosses  the  line  of  this  interceptor 
will  be  crossed  so  that  no  inverted  siphons  are  required. 

Regarding  the  territory  west  of  Gwynn’s  Falls,  we  are  at  present 
able  to  make  only  some  general  suggestions.  It  is  much  broken 
up  by  valleys  and  is  not  yet  regularly  laid  out  with  streets.  When 
this  section  of  the  city  needs  sewerage,  it  is  practicable  to  adopt 
either  of  three  general  plans. 

It  is  possible  to  collect  most  of  the  sewage  of  this  territory  by 
means  of  inverted  siphons  carried  across  the  valleys  of  both  GwynnV 
Falls  and  Gwynn’s  Run,  on  or  near  the  line  of  Baltimore  street, 
and  to  discharge  it  into  the  high  level  interceptor.  It  is  also  possi¬ 
ble,  and  it  may  be  less  expensive,  to  collect  the  sewage  and  to  carry 
it  down  the  valley  of  Gwynn’s  Falls  and  discharge  it  into  the  low 
level  interceptor  at  Russell  street. 

Inasmuch  as  we  are  unable  to  decide  which  of  these  two  proposi¬ 
tions  may  be  found  most  expedient  when  it  is  necessary  to  sewer 
the  territory  west  of  Gwynn’s  Falls,  we  have  allowed  an  increase 
in  the  capacity  for  both  the  western  high  level  and  low  level 
interceptors  for  this  purpose. 

There  is  a  third  possible  way  of  sewering  this  section.  When  it 
becomes  well  built  up  and  when  the  territory  lying  south  is  no 
doubt  also  being  improved,  it  is  practicable  to  build  an  intercepting 
sewer  from  Irvington  direct  to  the  proposed  Glen  Burnie  filtration 
area.  This  sewer  will  then  serve  the  territory  of  the  present  settle¬ 
ments  of  Claremont  and  Mt.  Winans. 

We  have  not  estimated  the  cost  of  the  western  low  level  sewer 
further  than  to  the  far  end  of  Russell  street,  as  it  is  somewhat 
uncertain  as  to  how  the  line  should  be  placed  at  such  a  time  when 
this  sewer  may  be  constructed.  We  have,  however,  shown  a  possi¬ 
ble  extension  by  a  dotted  line. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


173 


Likewise,  owing  to  tlie  uncertainty  regarding  the  exact  location, 
we  have  estimated  the  cost  of  the  eastern  low  level  interceptor  up 
to  the  city  line  at  Clinton  street.  By  a  dotted  line,  however,  we 
have  shown  a  possible  way  of  extending  it  into  territory  which,  in 
the  future,  should  be  sewered  by  it. 

Locust  Point  is  provided  with  main  sewers  as  follows : 

An  interceptor  starts  at  Charles  and  York  streets,  extends  eas¬ 
terly  on  the  latter,  and  skirts  the  harbor  as  far  as  the  intersection 
of  Jackson  and  Clement  streets  where  it  terminates. 

Starting  at  the  pumping  station  another  intercepting  and  main 
sewer  extends  southerly  on  Leadenhall  to  Barney  street,  thence  on 
Race  to  Winder  street,  thence  through  a  rather  deep  cut  easterly  to 
Allen  street.  It  crosses  the  peninsula  on  Allen  street  to  Clement 
street  and  thence  follows  the  latter  to  the  intersection  of  Garrett 
avenue,  where  both  the  sewer  and  the  present  built-up  part  of  the 
district  terminate. 

It  is  also  practicable  to  extend  this  sewer  southerly  as  far  as 
Jephson  street  and  there  to  cross  the  eastern  part  of  the  peninsula. 
It  is  also  practicable,  instead  of  placing  the  main  sewer  on  Clement 
street,  to  build  one  on  Wells  street  and  another  on  Marriott  street. 

Neither  of  these  lines  is  low  enough  to  take  the  sewage  from 
Fort  McHenry  or  Ferry  Point.  It  is  considered  that  this  territory 
which  is  excluded,  may  not  require  sewerage  for  many  }^ears.  But 
whenever  it  is  necessary  it  will  be  practicable  to  discharge  the 
sewers  directly  into  both  branches  of  the  river,  by  carrying  them 
out  to  the  heads  of  piers  or  through  submerged  pipes. 

It  is  possible,  by  placing  the  interceptors  on  Locust  Point  at  a 
lower  elevation,  to  sewer  the  entire  area  as  far  as  Fort  McHenry. 
The  cost  of  lowering  the  system,  however,  is  much  increased,  both 
for  construction,  and  also  from  the  fact  that  all  of  the  sewage,  even 
that  from  the  high  territory  of  the  Point,  will  at  once  have  to  be 
lifted  to  a  greater  height.  The  area  which  is  now  left  out  is  small. 
It  comprises,  besides  the  Fort,  but  a  small  area  not  at  present 
built  upon.  From  what  has  been  said  about  the  capacity  of  the 
river  to  receive  sewage  during  dry  weather  and  under  the  least 
favorable  circumstances,  without  causing  trouble,  we  believe  that 
this  small  quantity  can  eventually  be  discharged  into  it  without 
harmful  results. 

Should  such  discharge  not  be  deemed  desirable,  it  is  also  practi¬ 
cable  to  discharge  into  the  above-described  main  sewers  or  inter¬ 
ceptors,  by  collecting  the  sewage  at  convenient  points  and  there 


174 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


lifting  it  into  them  by  automatic  pumps,  operating  either  by  elec¬ 
tricity  or  compressed  air. 

Between  the  two  lines  just  mentioned,  we  give  the  preference  to 
that  which  is  more  direct,  because  by  saving  the  grade  it  reaches 
a  greater  distance  and  can  collect  the  sewage  from  as  far  east  as 
Garrett  avenue,  which  is  not  practicable  by  the  other  line.  The 
expense  may  be  somewhat  greater  on  account  of  the  deeper  excava¬ 
tion  on  Winder  and  on  Clement  streets,  but  this  extra  cost  should 
not  stand  in  the  way  of  building  a  system  which  will  effectively 
drain  the  largest  possible  area.  The  limit  of  the  area  is  marked 
upon  the  plan,  provided  the  street  grades  are  favorably  established. 

The  approximate  location  of  the  proposed  upper  district  mains 
is  indicated  upon  the  plan.  It  will  be  noticed  that  a  large  main 
extends  along  the  eastern  boundary  of  Patterson  Park.  If  found 
preferable,  it  can  as  well  be  located  within  the  Park.  District 
mains  extend  northerly  from  the  interceptor  on  each  side  of  Jones’ 
Falls.  Along  a  large  part  of  the  distance  there  is  no  street  and 
the  sewer  will  have  to  be  carried  along  the  railroad  and  a  special 
right  of  way  will  have  to  be  obtained  therefor.  In  the  low  ground 
of  the  southwestern  part  of  the  city  it  will  be  well  to  place  the 
main  sewers  more  frequently  so  as  to  give  the  laterals  sufficient 
fall.  In  order  to  collect  the  sewage  from  south  of  Winder  street  it 
will  be  preferable  to  build  only  a  few  district  mains,  as  shown,  into 
which  the  laterals  discharge,  rather  than  to  carry  these  laterals  on 
every  street  directly  into  the  Winder  street  main. 

On  territory  where  streets  are  not  yet  laid  out,  it  is  advisable  to 
make  a  careful  study  both  of  the  sewerage  and  drainage  require¬ 
ments  of  such  territory,  and,  if  possible,  to  have  the  streets  laid  out 
in  a  manner  which  may  not  only  serve  the  property,  but  also 
reduce  the  expense  both  of  the  sewerage  and  drainage  of  such 
territory.  By  considering  the  lay-out  of  property,  with  reference 
to  these  eventual  requirements,  it  is  often  found  that  the  total  cost 
of  improvement  is  much  reduced. 


p 

PUMPING  STATION  AND  DISCHAKGE  MAINS. 

The  pumping  station  has  been  provisionally  located  at  the  inter¬ 
section  of  Leadenhall  and  Stockholm  streets.  The  site  should  be 
selected  not  only  with  reference  to  collecting  the  sewage  to  the  best 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


175 


advantage,  but  also  with  reference  to  economy,  in  the  purchase 
price  of  the  land,  in  the  construction  of  the  work  and  in  operating 
the  system. 

The  station  has  been  designed  to  contain  a  pumping  plant  of 
sufficient  capacity  to  raise  all  the  sewage  collected  from  the  low 
level  system,  and  to  deliver  it  to  the  filtration  fields  at  the  maximum 
rate  of  flow  in  the  intercepting  sewers,  at  a  time  when  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  city  contributing  sewage  has  reached  one  million  persons, 
and  also  to  contain  a  small  plant  for  pumping  the  ground  water, 
delivered  by  the  sub-drains  of  the  low  territory,  into  the  Patapsco 
Eiver. 

It  has  been  estimated  that  the  future  total  amount  of  sewage  of 
the  low  level  system  will  amount  to  95,250,000  gallons  per  24  hours, 
coming  from  635,000  persons;  and  it  has  been  assumed  that  half  of 
the  sewage  will  be  delivered  at  the  pumps  in  8  hours,  or  at  the  rate 
of  142,875,000  gallons  in  24  hours.  In  addition,  a  small  allowance 
has  been  made  for  ground  water,  which  may  find  its  way  into  the 
sewerage  system,  to  the  extent  of  1,500,000  gallons  in  24  hours. 
The  total  quantity  to  be  pumped  to  the  filtration  fields  will  be 
96,750,000  gallons  in  24  hours,  at  a  maximum  rate  of  6,015,417 
gallons  per  hour,  or  144,370,000  gallons  per  24  hours. 

The  elevation  of  the  invert  of  the  sewers  at  the  pump  wells  is 
assumed  at  — 13.75.  The  elevations  to  which  the  sewmge  must  be 
lifted  are  +  81  for  the  Glen  Burnie  pipes  and  +  119  for  the  Elva- 
ton  pipes.  The  actual  lift,  when  the  sewers  run  half  full,  wTill 
therefore  be  90  feet  to  Glen  Burnie  and  128  feet  to  Elvaton.  As 
all  pumping  in  the  future  will  be  confined  to  the  sewage  delivered 
at  the  Elvaton  fields,  the  pumps  should  be  proportioned  for  the 
greater  lift. 

The  length  of  the  gravity  mains  from  Franklin  street  to  Glen 
Burnie  is  about  55,050  feet,  the  length  from  the  pumping 
station  being  about  37,900  feet.  The  length  of  the  force  mains  to 
Elvaton  is  57,000  feet. 

To  lift  the  above-mentioned  quantities  the  station  must  eventu¬ 
ally  provide  five  30,000,000  gallon  pumps  and  a  boiler  plant  of 
4,100  horse-power. 

The  ground  water  collected  at  the  station  will  be  suitable  for 
condensing  the  steam  from  the  engines,  and  may  be  used  for  that 
purpose.  But  occasions  might  arise  which  necessitate  its  discharge 
into  the  Patapsco  Eiver.  It  would  then  have  to  be  pumped  against 
a  head  of  22  feet  at  the  rate  of  3,000,000  gallons  per  24  hours, 
requiring  one  3,000,000  gallon  pump. 


176 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


As  there  should  he  reserve  pumps  and  boilers  for  the  sewage 
and  also  for  the  ground  water,  the  station  has  been  planned  to 
contain  eventually  six  30,000,000  gallon  pumps,  two  3,000,000 
gallon  pumps  and  ten  500  horse  power  boilers. 

It  is  presumed  that  all  the  low  level  intercepting  sewers  will 
be  built  within  a  few  years,  and  that  the  building  of  the  district 
sewers  and  branches  will  be  extended  over  a  much  longer  period. 
Therefore  it  has  been  estimated  that  in  the  low  level  system  a 
present  provision  should  be  made  for  the  sewage  of  only  260,000 
people.  The  amount  of  sewage  from  this  population,  together  with 
the  ground  water,  gives  a  maximum  rate  of  delivery  at  the  pumping 
station  of  about  60,000,000  gallons  per  24  hours. 

To  deliver  this  amount  to  the  Glen  Bur nie  filtration  fields  requires 
only  twro  30,000,000  gallon  pumps  and  a  boiler  plant  of  1,275  horse¬ 
power.  Adding  a  reserve  pump,  then  the  station  should  at  once 
be  provided  with  three  30,000,000  gallon  pumps  for  sewage,  and 
with  two  3,000,000  gallon  pumps  for  ground  water,  altogether 
supplied  by  four  500  horse  power  boilers. 

The  sewage  of  the  low  level  system  is  brought  to  the  pumping- 
station  through  a  0  foot  6  inch  main  sewer  extending  northerly  in 
Leadenhall  street  and  a  4  foot  10  inch  main  sewer  extending 
southerly  in  Leadenhall  street,  and  a  6  foot  2  inch  main  sewer 
extending  westerly  in  Stockholm  street. 

The  two  sewers  last  mentioned  are  connected  at  the  corner  of 
Leadenhall  and  Stockholm  streets,  and  continue  to  the  pumping 
station  as  an  8  foot  2  inch  sewer.  This  and  the  9  foot  6  inch 
sewer  are  brought  together  to  a  gate  and  cage  chamber,  where  gates 
provide  for  shutting  off  the  flow  of  sewage  in  either  one  or  both 
of  these  large  mains,  in  case  of  an  accident  to  the  machinery  at 
the  station.  After  passing  through  the  gates  the  sewage  is  dis¬ 
charged  into  a  well,  across  which  four  steel  cages  are  set,  with 
screens  made  of  steel  rods,  for  collecting  the  larger  solid  particles 
of  the  sewage.  A  hoisting  apparatus,  operated  by  an  engine  and 
located  in  a  room  adjoining  the  chamber,  is  set  above  these  cages, 
to  raise  and  lower  them,  when  they  become  so  filled  with  the  solid 
matter  as  to  impede  the  flow  of  sewage.  The  apparatus  is  so 
arranged  that  it  can  be  operated  by  hand,  should  any  accident 
occur  to  the  hoisting  engine.  The  screen-cages  are  hooked  to  a 
hoisting  bar  balanced  by  counterweights,  so  that  either  one  or  all 
of  the  cages  can  be  raised  at  once. 

Steel  screen  gates  are  set  in  front  of  each  cage  and  closed  so  as 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


177 


to  screen  the  sewage  while  the  cage  is  being  cleaned.  They  are 
hinged  to  the  screen-cage  guide  posts,  and  so  constructed  that 
they  can  be  operated  from  the  floor  of  the  house.  The  screenings 
can  be  thrown  into  a  car  running  on  a  track  from  the  cage  house  to 
the  boilers  and  be  burned. 

From  the  cage  chamber  the  sewage  discharges  into  a  screen  well 
(a  large  underground  chamber),  out  of  which  conduits  lead  to  the 
suction  pipes  of  the  pump.  There  are  six  of  these  conduits  grouped 
in  pairs.  In  front  of  each  group  is  an  inclined  screen-rack  of 
composition  metal,  to  prevent  the  finer  particles  in  the  sewage 
from  entering  the  suction  pipes.  These  racks  are  kept  free  and 
clean  by  raking  from  a  platform  in  the  well  provided  for  the  pur¬ 
pose.  The  screenings  are  placed  in  a  receptacle,  carried  to  a  shaft 
which  opens  into  a  room  adjoining  the  boiler  house,  raised  in  it 
to  the  upper  floor,  dumped  into  a  car  and  taken  to  the  boilers  and 
burned.  Access  to  this  screen- well  is  provided  by  a  flight  of  steps. 
It  is  lighted  from  overhead  and  thoroughly  ventilated  through  a 
large  brick  conduit  extending  from  near  the  top  of  the  well  to  a 
flue  in  the  chimney. 

The  conduits  leading  from  the  screen-well  to  the  suction  pipe  are 
lower  than  the  bottom  of  the  well,  so  as  to  insure  a  sufficient  depth 
of  sewage  for  supplying  the  pumps  at  times  of  minimum  flow. 

At  the  head  of  each  conduit  a  gate  is  placed  to  control  the  flow, 
and  also  to  shut  off  the  conduit  from  the  screen  well,  in  case  of  an 
accident  to  the  pump.  These  gates  are  operated  from  the  yard  at 
the  side  of  the  engine  house,  and  can  be  readily  reached  through 
the  side  door  in  the  engine  room. 

The  large  sewage  pumps  discharge  into  a  48  inch  main  laid 
along  the  side  of  the  engine  house,  and  from  which  four  48  inch 
force  mains  extend  to  the  discharge  mains  in  Hanover  street.  Only 
two  of  these,  however,  will  be  needed  for  present  service.  The 
gates  in  the  48  inch  main  in  the  engine  house  are  arranged  so 
that  additional  pumps  can  be  connected  with  it  in  the  future,  with¬ 
out  interfering  with  the  running  of  the  other  pumps,  and  also  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  remaining  two  lines  of  48  inch  mains  can  be 
laid  and  put  into  service  at  any  time. 

The  condensers  for  the  large  pumps  are  set  in  the  basement  of 
the  engine  room,  which  are  lighted  from  the  basement  court  area 
in  the  rear  of  the  engine  house.  The  condenser  pumps  may  be 
arranged  so  as  to  take  water  from  the  sub-drain  well,  or  they  can 
take  the  condensing  water  through  a  special  pipe  from  the  Patapsco 
River. 


178 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  several  sub-drains,  laid  in  the  side  walls  of  the  intercepting 
sewers,  are  brought  together  at  a  well  underneath  the  small  pump 
room.  A  gate  is  placed  at  the  head  of  this  well,  so  that  it  can 
be  entirely  shut  off  from  the  drains.  The  well  is  lighted  from  the 
pump  room  floor. 

If  the  ground  water  is  not  used  for  condensing  purposes,  it  can 
be  pumped  from  this  well  into  the  storm  drain  now  laid  in  Stock¬ 
holm  street. 

The  boiler  house  is  so  arranged  that  additional  boilers  can  be 
set  up  and  put  into  service  at  any  time.  A  small  car  track  is 
provided  for  bringing  coal  to  the  boilers  and  for  carrying  away 
ashes. 

The  coal  house  at  the  end  of  the  boiler  house  is  intended  to  be 
large  enough  for  storing  about  200  tons  of  coal.  Teams  can  be 
driven  up  the  inclined  roadway  and  the  coal  dumped  through 
manholes  in  the  roof ;  or,  a  spur-track  can  be  laid  around  the  pump¬ 
ing  station,  and  the  coal  delivered  directly  from  the  cars  into  the 
coal  house  through  chutes  placed  in  the  windows. 

The  chimney  is  about  250  feet  high  and  the  interior  diameter  of 
its  core  is  11 \  feet.  It  is  so  arranged  that  an  economizer  can  be 
placed  in  the  smoke  flue,  leading  from  the  boilers  to  the  chimney. 

The  station  is  equipped  with  an  office  for  the  chief  engineer  and 
has  also  a  bathroom  and  a  coat-room. 

A  traveling  crane  should  be  placed  in  the  pump  room  for  con¬ 
venience  in  handling  the  machinery  during  erection  and  for  making 
repairs  at  any  time. 

It  should  be  stated  that  a  sewage  pumping  station  need  not 
cause  any  nuisance  in  the  neighborhood.  The  sewage  is  brought 
into  the  station  under  ground  by  the  sewers,  and  the  screens,  pump 
wells  and  other  receptacles  are  all  under  cover.  The  screenings 
are  destroyed  by  burning,  and  the  sewers,  wells  and  chambers,  as 
well  as  the  buildings  themselves,  are  thoroughly  ventilated.  Large 
sewage  pumping  stations  exist  within  the  cities  of  London  and 
Berlin  and  give  no  offense  whatever.  Those  in  Boston  are  outside 
of  the  city,  but  there  is  no  odor  noticeable  in  their  vicinity. 

The  sewage  collected  by  the  high  level  system  at  Eutaw  and 
Franklin  streets,  eventually  from  365,000  persons,  has  been  esti¬ 
mated  at  54,750,000  gallons  in  twenty-four  hours,  and  the  maximum 
rate  of  flow  at  82,125,000  gallons  per  twenty-four  hours.  A  small 
addition  for  ground  water  brings  this  rate  to  about  83,000,000 
gallons. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


1T9 


The  discharge  mains,  which  carry  the  sewage  to  the  filtration 
fields  at  Glen  Bnrnie  by  gravity,  will  be  two  pipes  60  inches  in 
diameter,  with  a  maximum  velocity  of  about  3.3  feet  per  second. 
As  the  total  quantity  of  both  sewage  and  ground  water  is  esti¬ 
mated  at  55,625,000  gallons  in  twenty-four  hours,  the  mean  average 
velocity  will  be  slightly  less  than  3  feet  per  second. 

The  route  selected  for  these  gravity  mains,  starting  at  Franklin 
street,  is  through  Eutaw,  Henrietta,  Charles,  Moale  and  Byrd  streets 
to  near  the  Ferry  Bridge,  crossing  the  river  nearly  parallel  with 
the  bridge.  The  route  then  takes  a  straight  course,  almost  due 
south,  to  a  tunnel  through  the  ridge,  thence  continues  in  the  same 
direction  to  near  Cabin  Creek,  where  it  turns  slightly  to  the  west, 
following  nearly  parallel  with  the  Annapolis  turnpike  to  Glen 
Burnie. 

These  two  gravity  mains  have  a  hydraulic  gradient  of  .00068, 
when  flowing  at  a  velocity  of  3  feet  per  second,  and  .0008  when 
discharging  the  assumed  maximum  quantity  of  sewage  and  ground 
water. 

As  it  will  be  several  years  before  the  amount  of  sewage  from 
the  high  level  system  reaches  the  quantity  that  these  two  mains 
can  carry,  only  one  main  should  be  laid  at  first,  from  Franklin  to 
Ostend  street,  and  two  mains  from  there  to  the  Glen  Burnie  filtra¬ 
tion  fields,  ending  one  of  them  at  about  the  center  of  the  fields. 
The  latter  is  to  be  temporarily  used  for  the  discharge  of  the  sewage 
pumped  from  the  low  level  system,  and  the  former  for  discharging 
the  high  level  sewage  by  gravity. 

As  the  quantity  of  sewage  increases,  additional  mains  can  be 
added  from  time  to  time.  But  they  will  have  to  be  built  to  Elva- 
ton,  as  the  area  at  Glen  Burnie  cannot  properly  purify  more  sewage 
than  can  be  delivered  by  the  two  mains  laid  at  first. 

To  discharge  the  sewage  from  the  low  level  system  by  pumping, 
when  there  are  one  million  people  in  the  city,  requires  three  60  inch 
mains  laid  to  the  Elvaton  filtration  fields. 

These  mains  will  have  an  hydraulic  gradient  of  .0011,  causing 
an  average  velocity  of  3  feet  per  second,  but  at  times  of  a  maximum 
discharge  the  velocity  will  be  about  3.8  feet  per  second.  The  route 
chosen  for  them,  starting  at  the  pumping  station,  is,  to  and  along 
Hanover  street  to  Cromwell,  Marshall  and  Dorsey  streets,  thence 
to  Ferry  Point,  and  crossing  the  river  parallel  to  the  mains  pre¬ 
viously  laid.  As  the  hydraulic  gradient  has  a  higher  elevation  than 
the  mains  to  Glen  Burnie,  this  line  can  be  farther  east  and  go 
partly  around  the  hill,  which  makes  the  necessary  tunnel  shorter. 


180 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Two  tunnels  are  therefore  required  south  of  the  Patapsco  River. 
One  containing  the  two  mains  which  discharge  at  Glen  Burnie  is 
about  8,000  feet  long,  and  of  sufficient  size  to  permit  of  access  to 
them  at  any  time.  The  other  tunnel  contains  three  mains  discharg¬ 
ing  at  Elvaton.  It  can  be  higher  and  therefore  shorter  than  the 
other,  and  is  but  3,400  feet  long. 

In  crossing  the  river  the  discharge  mains  are  estimated  to  be 
encased  in  concrete,  as  shown  by  a  section  on  the  accompanying 
plans,  Plate  I.  A  branch  pipe  and  gate  should  be  provided  at  or 
near  the  river,  to  allow  the  mains  to  discharge  into  it  at  any  time, 
should  an  accident  occur  to  them. 

As  the  velocity  in  the  gravity  mains  for  the  first  few  years  will 
not  reach  the  average,  it  will  be  necessary  to  flush  them  occasionally 
by  accelerating  the  speed  of  the  pumps  and  drawing  the  necessary 
sewage  from  the  Ioav  level  system,  for  which  arrangements  should 
be  made.  For  flushing  the  upper  portion  of  the  gravity  mains, 
north  of  the  pumping  station,  a  branch  connects  them  with  the 
main  interceptor  in  Leadenhall  street,  so  that  its  contents  may  at 
any  time  be  discharged  into  the  low  level  system  with  a  highly 
increased  velocity.  If  practicable,  the  grade  should  be  such  that 
these  mains  can  be  completely  emptied. 

Careful  investigations  should  be  made  regarding  the  best  mate¬ 
rial  for  the  discharge  mains  to  insure  durability  and  economy. 
The  estimates  of  cost  have  been  made  on  the  assumption  that  steel 
plates  are  used  in  the  construction  and  that  the  pipes  are  made  in 
the  most  approved  manner,  with  butt  joints  and  counter-sunk  rivet- 
heads.  In  calculating  the  size  Rutter’s  formula  was  used,  with 
coefficient  of  roughness  n—  .015. 


Q 

ELEMENTS  OF  DESIGN, 
a.  Velocity  of  Sewage. 

The  question  of  velocity  is  very  important,  because  if  it  is  too 
slight,  sewage  matter  will  not  be  carried  off  but  will  be  deposited, 
and  if  it  is  too  great,  a  gradual  destruction  of  the  material  of 
which  the  sewers  are  built  will  take  place. 

In  order  to  make  sewers  self-cleansing  as  much  as  possible  and 
to  prevent  deposit  and  foulness,  the  least  velocity  of  the  sewage 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


181 


should  at  no  time  fall  below  20  inches  per  second.  When  sewers 
are  first  put  into  operation,  comparatively  few  houses  are  connected 
with  them,  and  therefore  the  quantity  of  sewage  will  be  compara¬ 
tively  small.  At  such  times,  however,  the  velocity  should  be  not 
less  than  20  inches  per  second.  This  remark  is  of  importance  only 
with  reference  perhaps  to  the  upper  end  of  the  proposed  inter¬ 
cepting  sewers  and  to  the  branch  or  lateral  sewers  in  compara¬ 
tively  level  territory.  At  the  upper  end  of  the  interceptors  the 
difficulty,  if  expected,  may  be  somewhat  overcome  by  adopting  an 
egg-sliape  rather  than  a  circular  section,  as  mentioned  below. 

The  hilly  nature  of  most  of  the  city  will  generally  secure  a  good 
velocity  in  both  main  and  branch  sewers. 

We  have  found  it  practicable  to  assume  a  mean  velocity  of  four 
feet  per  second  for  nearly  all  of  the  high  level  and  for  the  eastern 
and  western  low  level  interceptors.  This  velocity  not  only  secures 
their  comparative  cleanness,  but  it  also  allows  their  size  to  be 
reduced.  This  improved  condition,  and  the  economy  resulting  from 
the  reduction  of  size,  we  consider  to  balance  the  cost  of  an  increased 
depth  of  excavation  and  of  the  additional  height  of  pumping  made 
necessary. 

We  found  it  impracticable  to  assume  so  good  a  velocity  for  the 
interceptors  and  mains  collecting  the  sewage  from  Locust  Point. 
It  would  have  required  either  leaving  out  some  important  territory 
or  an  increased  lift  at  the  pumping  station,  which,  under  the  con¬ 
ditions,  was  not  economical.  We  therefore  assumed  a  mean 
velocity  of  three  feet  per  second. 

Similar  conditions  made  it  advisable  to  reduce  also  to  three  feet 
per  second  the  mean  velocity  in  the  eastern  high  level  interceptor 
above  Jones’  Falls.  And  it  was  found  economical  to  assume  this 
same  velocity  for  both  the  force  mains  extending  from  the  pumping 
station,  and  for  the  discharge  mains  extending  from  the  high  level 
system  to  the  filtration  fields.  A  velocity  of  four  feet  per  second  in 
the  latter  case  would  necessitate  a  material  reduction  of  the  area 
sewered  by  the  high  level  system. 

It  is  generally  desirable  to  increase  the  velocity  as  the  sewage 
approaches  a  pumping  station  or  an  outfall.  Such  gradual  increase 
is  a  good  preventive  of  deposit,  but  it  is  not  always  practicable. 
In  the  City  of  Baltimore,  where  the  collecting  interceptors  must 
necessarily  have  a  light  grade,  the  sewage  in  them  will  have  less 
velocity  than  in  the  district  mains  and  laterals  which  feed  them. 
Consequently  there  will  be  more  deposit  in  the  interceptors  than 


182 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


if  the  case  were  reversed.  Ample  arrangements  for  flushing  them 
therefore  become  necessary. 

The  greatest  velocity  which  should  be  allowed  in  a  sewer  was 
found,  after  much  experience  in  England,  to  be  about  six  feet  per 
second ;  a  greater  velocity  causes  a  gradual  wear,  even  if  the  hardest 
materials  are  employed.  This  limit  is  confined  to  a  continuous 
flow  of  sewage  and  not  to  the  combined  sewers  where  much  greater 
mean  velocities  are  occasionally  permissible. 

When  the  gradients  of  the  streets  are  so  steep  that  a  sewer,  laid 
parallel  with  the  surface,  would  cause  more  than  a  six  foot  velocity, 
it  is  then  proper  that  the  grade  of  the  sewer  should  be  broken  and 
vertical  drops  built  to  break  also  the  velocity.  Unless  very  hard 
and  durable  material  can  be  employed  in  the  construction  of  steep 
sewers,  it  may  often  be  found  advisable  to  reduce  the  continuous 
velocity  of  the  sewage  even  to  below  six  feet  per  second. 

In  fixing  the  gradients  a  careful  distinction  should  be  made 
between  the  slope  of  the  bottom  and  the  hydraulic  slope,  which  is 
the  free  surface  of  the  flowing  water.  "While  the  bottom  slope 
should  be  designed  to  give  the  least  flow  of  sewage  a  proper  velocity, 
the  hydraulic  slope,  when  the  sewers  have  their  maximum  flow, 
should  prevent  a  retardation  due  to  junctions  or  to  high  water  at 
the  outfalls. 

b.  Shape  and  Size  of  Sewers. 

The  design  of  the  sectional  shape  of  a  sewer  should  have  for  its 
object  the  concentration  of  the  ordinary  flow  so  as  to  increase  the 
velocity  and  prevent  the  deposit  of  suspended  matter.  A  flat  bot¬ 
tom,  for  instance,  allows  the  sewage  to  be  spread  out,  the  depth  is 
reduced  and  consequently  also  the  velocity. 

The  semi-circular  form  is  the  best  section  in  this  case  for  the 
flow  of  water.  Where  the  flow  varies  considerably,  as  in  the 
combined  system  of  sewers,  the  egg-shape  is  a  better  form,  because 
it  gives  an  approximately  semi-circular  section  for  both  small  and 
large  discharges.  Where,  however,  the  flow  varies  but  slightly 
during  the  day,  as  in  a  separate  system  of  sewers,  it  is  preferable  to 
adopt  the  semi-circular  form  and  therefore  circular  sewers.  In  the 
few  instances  mentioned  above,  where  a  sewer  is  not  expected  to 
receive  more  than  a  small  proportion  of  the  computed  quantity  of 
sewage  for  a  long  time,  it  may  be  expedient  to  adopt  an  elliptical 
or  egg  form. 

To  give  sewers  their  proper  size  is  naturally  of  great  importance. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


183 


If  they  are  too  small  they  will  not  carry  the  required  quantity  of 
water  and  will  be  liable  to  obstruction.  If  they  are  too  large  a 
useless  expense  will  have  been  incurred  and  the  flow  will  be  more 
shallow  and  therefore  more  likely  to  facilitate  deposits. 

The  smallest  size  that  it  is  proper  to  give  to  your  public  sewers 
is  a  diameter  of  eight  inches.  A  smaller  size  has  occasionally  been 
advocated,  but  experience  has  shown  that  no  advantage  is  gained. 
It  is  true  that  a  six  inch  pipe  will  remove  the  sewage  from  a  large 
number  of  houses,  but  it  is  also  true  that,  as  experience  has  shown, 
these  small  pipes  frequently  become  clogged  up  and  cause  trouble 
and  expense  in  the  removal  of  the  obstructions.  In  England, 
experiments  made  by  Latham  show  a  remarkable  difference  in  the 
number  of  stoppages  occurring  in  a  six  inch  and  in  a  nine  inch 
sewer,  and  there  the  latter  size  is  employed  as  the  minimum. 

The  least  size  to  be  given  to  house  sewers  is  six  inches,  when 
they  are  made  of  clay  pipe,  and  four  inches  when  of  iron  pipe, 
which  has  fewer  and  more  even  joints.  A  six  inch  pipe  is  sufficient 
to  carry  off  the  sewage  from  a  large  dwelling  house,  and  this  size, 
if  the  public  sewer  is  but  eight  inches,  should  therefore  also  be 
considered  a  maximum.  When  laying  public  sewers,  it  is  proper  to 
insert  none  but  six  inch  branches  for  house  connections,  and  in  the 
case  of  specially  large  buildings,  apartment  houses  or  business 
blocks,  to  insert  two  of  them. 

The  sizes  should  be  computed  on  a  basis  of  the  maximum  popula¬ 
tion  which  they  are  intended  to  serve.  The  quantity  of  sewage  and 
of  ground  water  allowed  is  given  above  for  different  existing  con¬ 
ditions.  For  the  maximum  flow,  the  sewers  should  be  computed 
to  run  not  more  than  half  full. 

In  making  calculations  for  sizes,  we  have  used  Kutter’s  Formula, 
and  assumed  the  value  of  n  designating  the  degree  of  roughness,  to 
be  equal  to  .014.  In  constructing  the  sewers  it  will  be  found  of 
great  advantage  to  make  the  interior  surface  as  smooth  as  possible, 
not  only  to  reduce  the  coefficient  of  roughness,  and  therefore  in¬ 
crease  the  capacity  of  the  sewers,  but  also  to  prevent  the  adhesion 
of  suspended  matter  which  is  liable  to  occur  along  the  rough  surface 
and  by  decomposition  to  cause  foulness. 

The  sizes  of  the  interceptors,  as  marked  on  the  plan,  are  approxi¬ 
mate  and  determined  only  for  purposes  of  estimate.  Before  con¬ 
struction  it  will  be  necessary  to  carefully  revise  them.  We  give  no 
sizes  for  the  district  sewers,  as  these  can  be  easily  determined  when 
their  exact  locations  are  fixed. 


184 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


c.  Depth  of  Sewers. 

The  proper  depth  of  sewers  below  the  surface  is  governed  by  the 
usual  depth  of  the  cellars.  Where  possible,  public  sewers  should  be 
placed  several  feet  below  them  so  that  the  private  sewers  can 
freely  discharge  into  them  with  a  fall  of  at  least  \  inch  per  foot. 
In  business  districts  the  top  of  a  public  sewer  is  usually  placed 
from  10  to  12  feet  below  the  pavements,  and  in  closely  built  up 
residence  districts,  nearly  as  deep.  In  the  higher  suburban  districts, 
where  cellar  drainage  is  generally  not  demanded,  the  depth  can 
be  reduced,  and  is  sometimes  fixed  at  six  feet.  Where  buildings  are 
placed  at  a  considerable  distance  back  from  the  curb  line,  the  depth 
of  the  public  sewer  must  be  sufficient  to  allow  for  the  fall  due  to 
the  increased  length  of  the  private  sewers. 

Interceptors  should  be  laid  deep  enough  to  receive  a  free  dis¬ 
charge  from  the  district  mains.  But  as  they  are  generally  laid 
across  instead  of  in  the  valleys  and  depressions,  their  depth  is 
sometimes  considerable  and  at  other  times  they  are  barely  beneath 
the  surface.  The  least  depth  in  your  city  should  allow  for  a  covering 
of  not  less  than  eighteen  inches — and  better  twenty-four  inches — so 
as  to  prevent  injury  by  frost  or  by  traffic. 

d.  Alignment  and  Junctions. 

The  alignment  of  the  branch  and  main  district  sowers  is  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  topography  and  by  the  local  improvements.  The 
mains  will  generally  be  placed  along  the  lowest  streets  of  the  area. 
It  may  be  found  advantageous  sometimes  to  place  sewers  in  alleys 
instead  of  on  the  streets,  because  house  connections  may  be  made 
less  expensive  by  carrying  the  sewer  to  the  rear.  But  in  view  of 
the  hilly  nature  of  the  territory  it  may  seldom  be  possible  to  obviate 
the  building  of  a  sewer  upon  the  street,  and  it  may  sometimes 
require  also  the  placing  of  one  in  the  adjoining  alley,  to  receive 
the  sewage  from  the  buildings  situated  on  the  lower  side  of  the 
street. 

It  is  not  only  necessary  to  lay  sewers  with  a  perfect  gradient,  so 
as  to  obtain  a  regular  velocity  and  prevent  deposits,  but  it  is  also 
necessary  that  small  sewers  of  15  inches  or  less  in  diameter,  should 
be  laid  perfectly  straight  in  their  direction,  and  that  when  a  turn 
is  necessary,  it  should  be  made  entirely  within  a  manhole.  The 
advantage  of  this  method  of  construction  lies  in  the  fact  that  every 
part  of  the  sewer  can  then  be  inspected  and,  if  necessary,  cleaned 
from  a  manhole  at  any  time. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


185 


The  manholes  should  be  conveniently  located  and  provided  with 
iron  steps  so  that  they  can  be  easily  descended.  They  should  also 
be  provided  with  locked  covers,  having  openings  for  ventilation, 
and  dirt  pans  under  them  to  catch  the  dirt  that  falls  through  the 
openings.  Such  pans  are  of  much  more  importance  in  a  separate 
than  in  a  combined  system  of  sewers,  and  should,  therefore,  never  be 
omitted.  The  dirt  which  they  collect  should  be  emptied  regularly. 

Where  the  gradients  are  sufficiently  steep  to  allow  of  a  drop  at 
the  manhole,  it  is  best  in  that  case  e\ren  to  lay  pipes  as  large  as  24 
inches  in  diameter  perfectly  straight  between  the  manholes. 
Larger  sewers,  when  changing  their  directions,  are  curved  with 
large  radii.  The  impossibility  of  examining  them  directly  from  the 
manhole  is  not  serious  because  they  can  be  entered  and  thus  in¬ 
spected  and  cleaned. 

The  junctions  of  sewers  form  an  important  detail.  When  two  or 
more  streams  are  joined  improperly,  eddies  occur  and  the  suspended 
matter  in  the  sewage  deposits  and  accumulates.  The  streams 
should  join  each  other  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  meet  undue  retar¬ 
dation  or  resistance  and  so  as  to  prevent  eddies.  The  inverts  should 
be  of  such  relative  heights  that  during  the  ordinary  flow,  the  water 
surfaces  of  joining  streams  should  have  nearly  the  same  height,  so 
that  one  stream  should  not  cause  back  water  in  the  other.  To 
overcome  the  loss  of  head  in  changing  the  direction,  a  corresponding 
fall  should  be  given,  particularly  when  the  gradients  are  flat.  The 
invert  surfaces  should  continue  until  they  naturally  intersect  and 
form  between  them  what  is  called  a  tongue.  The  omission  of  the 
tongue  ahvays  allows  eddies  to  form  and  silt  and  filth  to  deposit. 
Where  sewers  cross  drains  in  such  a  manner  that  one  or  the  other 
needs  siphoning,  it  is  preferable  to  depress  the  sewer,  and  to  pre- 
serve  the  grade  of  the  drain  for  the  better  removal  of  the  heavier 
silt  carried  along  by  it. 

e.  Ventilation. 

The  object  of  ventilating  a  sewer  is  two  fold: 

First — The  air,  if  confined  within  the  sewer,  is  subject  to  com¬ 
pression  and  rarefaction  by  the  rise  and  fall,  and  also  by  the  change 
of  temperature  of  the  sewage.  This  variation  of  density  in  the 
sewer  air  often  causes  either  a  blowing  out  or  a  siphonage  of  the 
traps  attached  to  the  fixtures  in  the  houses,  and  a  consequent  escape 
of  foul  air  into  the  same.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  maintain 


186 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


atmospheric  pressure  within  the  pipes,  or,  in  other  words,  a  free 
communication  with  the  outer  air. 

Secondly — The  sewage  in  its  daily  rise  and  fall,  due  to  the 
different  rates  of  water  consumption  during  the  day  and  night, 
coats  the  sides  of  the  sewer  with  matter  carried  in  suspension.  By 
decomposition  this  coating  may  evolve  offensive  gases.  Sewage 
that  is  not  fresh,  hut  has  been  temporarily  held  back  by  imperfect 
design  or  construction  of  the  pipes  and  fixtures  within  the  buildings, 
or  by  an  imperfect  manner  of  cleaning  the  same,  not  to  mention  a 
retention  in  cesspools,  likewise  becomes  offensive.  It  is  therefore 
desirable  to  dilute  the  sewer  air  sufficiently  to  make  the  gases  con¬ 
tained  therein  unnoticeable  and  to  neutralize  their  bad  effect. 

The  problem  of  sewer  ventilation  therefore  resolves  itself  into  a 
provision  for  maintaining  a  direct  communication  between  the  air 
in  the  sewers  and  the  atmosphere,  and  in  causing  the  entrance  of 
pure  air,  and  its  circulation  through  the  sewers,  to  be  as  free  as 
practicable. 

The  most  perfect  way  of  accomplishing  the  above  conditions,  is 
to  ventilate  the  public  sewers  through  the  house  drains  and  soil 
pipes  of  the  buildings,  to  omit  a  main  trap  along  the  house  sewer, 
which  also  acts  as  a  retainer  of  foul  matter,  and  to  have  perfora¬ 
tions  in  the  manhole  covers  of  the  public  sewers.  In  this  way  an 
abundance  of  air  can  enter  the  system,  not  only  from  the  outfall, 
but  through  the  manhole  covers,  and  circulate  through  the  sewers 
and  out  through  every  .private  sewer  to  above  the  roofs  of  the 
buildings. 

Such  a  method  of  ventilation,  however,  requires  that  the  entire 
plumbing  in  the  house  is  planned  and  constructed  by  responsible 
parties,  so  that  the  work  will  be  first-class.  It  is  also  necessary  to 
have  the  house  pipes  tested  after  the  plumbing  is  finished,  so  as 
to  be  assured  of  tight  joints. 

This  method  has  been  tried  in  several  cities  in  our  country,  and  is 
the  common  one  of  the  continent  of  Europe.  But  it  is  not  the  usual 
one  in  our  country,  for  there  is  in  the  minds  of  many  a  fear  that  if 
the  public  sewer  should  be  ventilated  through  the  soil  pipe  of  their 
house,  some  danger  might  arise,  through  a  leak  in  their  own  pipes, 
of  contracting  a  disease,  the  germs  of  which  are  supposed  to  come 
from  the  public  sewer. 

From  experience  in  our  country  and  in  Europe,  these  fears  are  not 
well  founded  and  there  are  no  facts  on  record  to  justify  them.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  advantages  of  a  thorough  draft  through  the 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


187 


house  pipes  is  considerable  and  keeps  them  much  cleaner  than 
where  a  trap  is  placed  between  the  house  and  the  sewer,  thus 
disconnecting  the  two. 

It  has  been  said  that  air  coming  out  of  soil  pipes  below  windows 
of  adjoining  houses  might  cause  offense.  But  offense  could  also 
be  caused  if  there  were  a  main  trap  and  the  house  pipes  ivere  foul, 
which  they  generally  are  not  when  used  for  ventilating  the  public 
sewers. 

In  those  cities,  however,  where  the  municipal  control  of  the  house 
sewers  cannot  be  secured  it  is  deemed  better  to  have  such  a  trap 
and  to  confine  the  ventilation  of  the  public  sewers  to  whatever  cir¬ 
culation  is  obtained  from  the  openings  in  the  manhole  covers.  It 
would  be  found  in  such  a  case,  that  near  the  upper  end  of  your 
sewers  the  air  would  freely  escape  from  these  openings,  and  unless 
the  sewers  are  kept  scrupulously  clean,  its  odor  will  be  somewhat 
offensive,  as  observed  in  many  cities.  Then,  when  it  becomes 
desirable  to  prevent  this  escape,  there  is  no  better  practical  way 
than  by  leading  a  special  pipe  from  the  manhole  up  to  beyond 
the  roof  of  an  adjoining  house,  but  with  the  practical  difficulty  of 
securing  the  proper  rights. 

A  still  less  effective,  though  a  somewhat  palliative  measure 
against  the  escape  of  the  air  at  the  highest  manhole,  is  to  hang  a 
light  rubber  flap  valve  against  the  opening  of  the  inlet  pipe  to 
the  manholes  below,  which  allows  the  sewage  to  flow  by,  but 
prevents  much  of  the  air  from  passing  upwards  into  the  pipe.  By 
such  means  each  section  between  two  manholes  is  ventilated  inde¬ 
pendently  and  the  escaping  air  is  likely  to  be  less  foul.  If  the 
sewers  are  kept  properly  cleaned,  as  they  ought  to  be,  the  air 
should  not  be  offensive  or  generally  noticeable  above  the  surface  of 
the  street. 

It  is  often  found  that  from  a  single  new  sewer  offensive  odors 
are  at  once  emitted  at  the  manholes,  and  this  is  also  the  case,  even 
where  an  entire  district  is  provided  with  new  sewers.  This  objec¬ 
tionable  feature  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  at  first  but  few  house 
connections  are  made,  and  therefore  an  insufficient  quantity  of 
sewage  is  discharged  to  maintain  a  continuous  flow,  and  thus 
deposits  are  allowed  to  form.  The  use  of  automatic  flush  tanks 
will,  to  some  extent,  obviate  this  trouble. 

Escaping  odor  may  also  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  sewage  comes 
from  overflowing  cesspools  and  is  therefore  in  a  foul  condition. 
The  trouble  from  this  cause  can,  of  course,  not.  be  prevented  until 


188 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


there  is  legislation  compelling  the  abandonment  of  such  cesspools 
and  the  substitution  of  a  modern  system  of  plumbing  and  a  direct 
connection  with  the  sewer. 

f.  Inspection  and  Flushing. 

A  sewerage  system  may  be  well  designed  and  well  built,  but  it 
will  not  give  perfect  satisfaction  unless  it  receives  periodical  in¬ 
spection  and  cleansing.  No  matter  how  carefully  grades  and  junc¬ 
tions  are  arranged,  deposits,  and  even  obstructions,  are  nevertheless 
liable  to  occur.  In  order  to  prevent  objectionable  consequences,  it 
is  necessary  to  do  three  things: 

First — There  should  be  a  municipal  control  over  the  connections 
with  the  houses  and  the  general  arrangement  of  sewage  receptacles 
on  private  premises,  so  as  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  matter  for 
the  removal  of  which  sewrers  are  not  intended. 

Secondly — There  should  be  a  periodical  inspection  of  the  public 
sewers  to  discover  any  slight  accumulation  of  matter,  which  by 
increasing  in  bulk,  might  ultimately  result  in  a  stoppage. 

Thirdly — There  should  be  a  periodical  cleansing  by  flushing  the 
entire  system. 

These  demands  are  of  far  more  practical  importance  where  the 
separate  system  is  adopted  than  where  the  sewers  must  be  built 
materially  larger. 

The  prevailing  and  unfortunate  custom  in  this  country  to  under¬ 
value  the  importance  of  keeping  sewers  clean  should  not  be  followed 
in  your  city,  where  with  a  separate  system,  which  will  be  more 
extensive  than  any  other  now  in  use,  a  comparative  neglect  in 
providing  proper  means  for  cleansing,  and  thereafter  in  frequently 
and  properly  using  them,  would  be  followed  by  far  more  extensive 
troubles  than  elsewhere. 

As  the  smaller  sewers  are  laid  perfectly  straight  between  points 
of  access,  the  inspection  is  not  difficult.  A  lamp  with  a  concave 
reflecting  mirror  is  held  at  one  point,  and  an  observer  stands  at  the 
other,  holding  a  plain  mirror  at  an  angle  of  45  degrees,  so  that 
when  looking  into  it  he  can  see  the  entire  stretch  of  pipe  between 
himself  and  the  lamp.  When  sewers  are  large  enough  to  be 
entered,  inspection  is  equally  easy. 

The  upper  ends  of  the  sewers,  receiving  but  a  small  amount  of 
sewage,  are  most  likely  to  have  deposits,  on  steep  as  well  as  on  light 
grades,  and  need  more  frequent  flushing  than  when  the  ordinary 
flow  is  greater.  Flush  tanks  are  therefore  necessary  at  all  the 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


189 


heads.  They  are  supplied  with  water  from  the  city  mains  and  may 
be  automatic  in  their  operation,  discharging  once  or  twice  daily,  or 
may  be  discharged  by  hand. 

A  flushing  lower  down  the  sewer  is  accomplished  by  inserting  a 
plug  at  the  manhole,  which  allows  the  sewage  to  accumulate  in 
sufficient  quantity  behind  it,  and  rush  through  the  sewer  when  the 
plug  is  subsequently  withdrawn.  Special  flush  gates  should  be 
built  into  large  sewers  and  used  in  a  similar  manner. 

A  very  beneficial  system  of  flushing,  particularly  the  larger  sewers, 
consists  in  the  admission  of  a  limited  amount  of  roof  water  near 
the  heads  of  the  sewers,  as  already  discussed  under  Section  N. 
Separate  System. 

The  interceptors  having  more  deposit  than  the  other  sewers,  on 
account  of  a  reduced  velocity,  should  be  flushed  by  still  other  means. 
They  should  have  large  flushing  tanks  placed  at  their  respective 
ends,  each  containing  from  2,000  to  3,000  cubic  feet  of  water,  or 
even  more,  which  can  be  discharged  whenever  demanded. 

The  western  high  level  interceptor  should  have  one  built  like  a 
circular  sewer  of  suitable  diameter  and  length,  at  the  point  where 
it  terminates  at  Gwynn’s  Run,  and  from  which  it  should  be  fed. 
The  eastern  high  level  interceptor  should  have  one  near  its  head. 
It  cannot  readily  be  supplied  either  from  Jenkins  or  Harford  Run, 
and  must,  therefore,  be  filled  from  the  public  water  supply.  The 
western  low  level  interceptor  may  have  its  flush  tank  fed  by  a 
special  channel  bringing  water  from  either  Gwynn’s  Run  or  Gwynn’s 
Falls.  The  eastern  low  level  interceptor  may  have  its  tank  fed 
from  the  run  discharging  into  the  Gorsucli  Creek,  or,  at  a  more 
distant  future,  from  Herring  Run.  The  interceptors  from  Locust 
Point,  having  less  gradient  than  the  others,  should  be  provided  with 
the  largest  flush  tanks,  and  they  will  have  to  be  filled  from  the 
public  water  supply. 

There  is  another  opportunity  of  flushing  some  of  the  mains  and 
interceptors  of  the  low  level  system  of  which  advantage  should  be 
taken.  Gates  may  be  placed  along  the  high  level  interceptors  at 
points  where  its  sewage  can  be  temporarily  passed  down  the  main 
sewers  of  the  low  level  system  at  will,  and  thence  flow  into  the 
interceptor.  A  comparatively  large  and  steady  stream  of  sewage 
may  thus  be  utilized  with  good  effect  and  avoid  the  necessity  of 
adding  clean  water  to  the  sewage  for  this  purpose,  and  thereby 
increasing  the  amount  which  must  be  lifted  by  the  pumps  and 
subsequently  purified. 


190 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


g.  House  Sewerage. 

A  few  words  should  be  added  regarding  what  is  considered  a 
most  important  part  of  the  system.  The  full  benefit  of  a  sewerage 
system  can  be  experienced  only  when  also  that  portion  of  it  which 
extends  into  the  houses  and  up  to  the  various  sewage  receptacles, 
is  properly  designed  and  constructed.  In  fact,  so  far  as  the  pro¬ 
pagation  of  disease  is  concerned,  the  latter  is  more  important  than 
the  public  part  of  the  system,  because  it  brings  any  possible  danger 
much  nearer  to  the  individual. 

Usually  the  design  and  construction  of  the  house  sewerage  works 
are  left  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  property  owner.  We  cannot 
too  strongly  urge  that  the  custom  prevailing  almost  universally  in 
Europe,  and  already  to  some  extent  in  this  country,  be  adopted 
also  in  Baltimore,  according  to  which  the  municipality  has  control 
of  the  general  design  and  of  the  pipe  arrangements  within  the 
buildings,  and  in  some  cases  also  of  their  construction.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  owners  are  usually  obliged  to  rely  upon  an 
expert  plumber  or  architect.  But  in  many  cases  the  cost  of  getting 
good  advice  cannot  be  paid,  and  among  the  poorer  classes  therefore 
defective  plumbing  is  most  often  found. 

To  protect  such  citizens  and  their  neighbors  against  the  dangers 
arising  from  improperly  arranged  sewer  pipes  and  fixtures  within 
their  houses,  and  also  to  guard  the  public  sewers  against  misuse,  it 
is  now  becoming  customary  to  adopt  and  enforce  so-called  plumbing 
regulations  and  also  to  control  the  general  design  as  well  as  the 
sewer  connections.  While  assuring  all  reasonable  liberty  to  the 
owner,  he  should  be  compelled  to  adhere  to  certain  regulations,  both 
for  his  own  benefit,  as  well  as  for  that  of  his  neighbors. 


R 

STORM  DRAINAGE  SYSTEM. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  rain-water  must  be  carried 
off  by  a  separate  system  of  drains.  You  have  already  constructed 
many  of  such  drains  and  they  discharge  into  the  several  water¬ 
courses  within  the  city  limits  and  into  the  harbors. 

Some  data  concerning  the  existing  drains  were  furnished  us,  but 
the  available  information  is  scant.  There  is  some  uncertainty  as 
to  the  actual  boundaries  of  several  of  the  drainage  areas,  as  taken 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


191 


from  the  maps  furnished  to  us.  It  is  said  that  sometimes  the  actual 
areas  are  known  to  differ  from  those  obtained  from  the  contour 
survey,  and  that  therefore  artificial  boundaries  exist.  Further, 
there  are  now  relief  drains  in  some  instances  which  run  from  one 
area  into  another,  and  thus  complicate  the  system;  and  there  are 
instances  where  parallel  drains  exist  within  the  same  area.  It  is 
not  possible  to  determine  from  the  maps  what  proportion  of  the 
water  is  received  by  each  of  them.  Conditions  required  a  con¬ 
sideration  from  us  that  are  liable  to  change  from  time  to  time  and 
affect  the  location  of  drains. 

In  view  of  these  uncertainties,  it  was  found  impracticable  to 
design  a  general  system  so  far  as  the  actual  alignment  is  concerned. 
But  in  our  opinion  it  is  sufficient  for  present  purposes  to  discuss  the 
questions  in  such  a  manner  so  as  to  establish  the  general  principles 
that  should  be  adopted,  and  according  to  which  it  will  be  a  very 
simple  matter  for  local  engineers  to  determine  the  location  and 
design  of  any  particular  drain  at  the  time  when  this  may  be 
required. 

The  following,  therefore,  gives  the  principles  upon  which,  in  our 
opinion,  the  draining  system  should  be  based. 

As  the  contents  of  the  drains  carrying  only  rain-water  and  sub¬ 
soil  water,  are  not  offensive,  because  any  sewage  which  now  enters 
the  same  will  be  excluded,  the  outfalls  can  be  placed  at  the  most 
convenient  points  along  the  shore. 

Inasmuch  as  drains  are  mostly  of  large  size,  their  direction  should 
be  as  short  as  possible  to  the  outfall.  They  should  also  be  placed  as 
nearly  as  possible  along  the  lowest  territory  of  the  area.  It  will 
be  found  economical  to  concentrate  the  water  as  soon  as  possible 
into  large  drains,  instead  of  endeavoring  to  build  several  drains 
of  a  smaller  size. 

In  view  of  the  expense  of  the  main  drains,  and  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  often  not  built  until  the  territory  has  been  laid  out,  it 
would  be  well  to  settle  upon  the  most  economical  lines  at  an  early 
day,  in  order  to  secure  the  necessary  property  thereon,  and  it  will 
also  in  some  cases  be  found  economical  and  expedient  to  lay  out  a 
street  along  the  lines  found  best  for  the  drains. 

Begarding  the  sizes,  they  should  of  course  be  sufficient  to  carry 
off  the  water  from  the  heaviest  storms,  and  therefore  be  propor¬ 
tioned  for  the  run-off,  which  has  already  been  discussed. 

When  building  drains  through  lower  and  already  well  built-up 
districts,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  they  should  be  propor- 


192 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


tioned  for  the  future  condition  of  the  entire  drainage  area,  although 
the  upper  parts  of  it  may  now  be  sparsely  populated. 

Regarding  the  shape  of  the  drains  there  is  little  to  he  said  in 
addition  to  what  lias  already  been  said  regarding  the  shape  of  the 
sewers,  excepting  that  in  the  absence  of  foul  liquids,  it  is  not  as 
necessary  to  concentrate  the  flow  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  sewage. 
There  being  usually  but  little  head  available  in  the  lower  parts  of 
the  city,  where  we  naturally  find  the  largest  drains,  the  sectional 
shape  will  of  necessity  be  wide  and  shallow.  If  found  practicable, 
it  is  preferable,  instead  of  having  a  perfectly  level  bottom,  as  in  the 
present  large  drains,  to  have  a  slightly  Y-shaped  bottom,  formed 
either  of  timber  or  concrete,  by  which  a  more  thorough  removal  of 
the  deposit  by  the  natural  flow  of  the  stream  may  be  expected. 

The  gradients  of  the  drains  will  in  your  city  be  partly  very  flat 
and  partly  quite  heavy.  The  usual  formulae  will  indicate  what  the 
least  gradient  should  be  for  any  particular  drain,  taking  into  con¬ 
sideration  the  fact  that  many  storms  will  bring  in  silt,  and  if  the 
velocity  is  insufficient,  will  deposit  and  tend  to  fill  the  drains.  In 
their  design,  consideration  should  also  be  given  to  the  hydraulic 
gradient  of  the  water  during  the  heaviest  storms,  which  should  in 
no  case  rise  to  such  an  elevation  as  to  cause  flooding.  It  is  at 
times  when  the  capacity  of  the  drains  is  most  severely  taxed  that 
the  advantages  of  a  proper  design  are  most  decidedly  felt. 

In  some  parts  of  the  city  the  drains  will  naturally  have  very  steep 
grades.  In  some  instances  it  may  be  found  advisable,  as  in  the  case 
of  sewers,  to  insert  drops  along  the  lines  of  the  drains,  in  order  to 
break  an  excessive  velocity  which  might  tend  to  destroy  them. 
While  a  continuous  flow  of  six  feet  per  second  is  deemed  a  maxi¬ 
mum  velocity,  an  occasional  flow,  such  as  during  rainstorms,  can 
safely  be  increased  to  twelve  or  even  fifteen  feet  per  second,  when 
however,  the  drains  must  be  built  of  great  strength. 

It  would  be  well  for  the  city  to  have  authority  to  establish  the 
grades  of  those  streets  upon  which  main  drains  will  be  required  in 
the  future,  before  the  property  is  being  improved  by  erecting  build¬ 
ings  and  by  paving.  The  construction  of  drains  is  sometimes  made 
quite  difficult  by  the  fact  that  the  streets  are  not  only  improperly 
laid  out,  but  also  improperly  graded  to  suit  the  future  demands  for 
draining  the  territory. 

The  admission  of  rain-water  from  the  streets  should  be  obtained 
through  inlets  placed  more  frequently  than  at  present,  so  as  to 
reduce  their  size  and  avoid  the  unsightly  and  dangerously  large 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE  193 

openings  now  existing  along  the  streets.  It  will  be  evident,  that 
the  more  frequently  they  are  placed,  the  less  water  will  accumulate 
at  the  foot  of  a  hill,  and  therefore,  the  smaller  the  opening  need  be. 

We  are  also  of  the  opinion  that  the  inlets  should  not  be  provided 
with  catch-basins  to  retain  the  silt  or  whatever  may  be  washed 
into  them.  The  object  of  such  basins  is  to  intercept  the  heavy 
matter  and  periodically  cart  it  away,  instead  of  allowing  it  to 
reach  the  drains  and  there  to  deposit.  Catch-basins,  even  after  the 
sewage  flow  no  longer  exists  in  the  gutters,  are  still  apt  to  get  foul 
because  of  the  organic  matter  washed  from  the  streets.  Such 
foulness  is  less  offensive  in  the  drains  than  in  the  catch-basins, 
which  are  situated  at  the  sidewalks,  and  where  it  is  much  more 
likely  to  be  observed.  Also,  it  is  found  impracticable  to  intercept 
all  matter  in  the  catch-basins  which  would  deposit  in  the  drains 
after  they  reach  the  flat  grades  in  the  lower  part  of  your  city. 
The  cleaning  of  the  drains  would,  therefore,  be  necessary  in  any 
event,  and  the  additional  amount  of  silt  that  would  otherwise  be 
intercepted  by  the  catch-basins,  will  not  cost  much  more  to  remove. 

In  the  city  of  Paris,  even  though  a  combined  system  of  sewers  is 
used,  it  is  not  found  objectionable  to  allow  all  the  street  dirt  to 
enter  the  sewers  and  therefore  the  catch-basins  at  the  inlets  are 
omitted. 

While  we  recommend  that  no  catch-basins  shall  be  used,  we  also 
recommend  the  disuse  of  traps,  excepting  in  special  cases,  where  it 
may  be  found  desirable.  Where  one  is  required,  it  can  be  made 
in  the  form  of  a  mechanical  or  swinging  trap,  rather  than  a  water 
trap,  which  necessarily  implies  a  catch-basin.  A  hanging  trap, 
although  not  entirely  excluding  the  air,  is  entirely  sufficient,  when 
applied  to  a  drain  from  which  the  sewage  is  excluded,  and  where, 
in  the  worst  cases,  but  a  slight  odor  will  exist  in  the  drain  that 
would  not  be  noticed  when  a  hanging  trap  is  used. 

The  question  of  ventilation  of  drains  receives  a  very  simple 
solution  by  the  omission  of  traps  from  the  inlets,  as  there  will  be  a 
continual  circulation  of  air,  which,  if  sewage  is  excluded,  will  not 
cause  offense.  The  comparatively  large  size  of  the  drains,  and  the 
consequent  abundance  of  circulating  air,  can  only  in  cases  of  gross 
carelessness,  or  under  extraordinary  conditions,  permit  of  any  ob¬ 
jectionable  odor.  The  first  part  of  a  rainstorm  brings  in  the 
dirtiest  water,  which,  during  the  latter  part,  is  usually  carried  to 
the  outfall.  The  use  of  traps  prevents  a  proper  circulation  of  air, 
and  therefore  a  proper  oxidation  of  whatever  foul  matter  may  have 
remained. 


194 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  sudden  entrance  of  water  from  the  rainstorms  will  neces¬ 
sarily  compress  the  air  in  the  drains,  and  force  it  out  at  points 
where  the  resistance  is  least.  The  escape  of  air  at  such  times 
would,  therefore,  be  far  more  objectionable  than  when  the  drains 
are  continuously  exposed  to  natural  ventilation. 

It  is  quite  material  that  the  bends  or  turns  of  drains  and  the 
junctions  of  two  or  more  of  them  should  be  properly  designed,  so 
as  to  prevent  any  reduction  in  the  velocity  of  the  water  during  the 
greatest  discharge.  If  there  is  an  obstruction,  caused  by  an  im¬ 
properly  built  junction,  it  will  affect  the  discharging  capacity  by 
reducing  it  in  the  stretch  above  the  obstruction.  Therefore,  to 
obtain  the  full  benefit  of  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  drain  itself, 
the  design  should  be  carefully  made  with  a  view  of  not  retarding 
the  velocity  of  the  water  at  any  point. 

In  order  to  prepare  for  the  proper  location  and  design  of  drains 
when  they  may  be  required  here  and  there,  a  map  should  be  made 
showing  the  actual  outlines  of  the  drainage  areas,  the  character  of 
the  territory  as  to  its  degree  of  perviousness,  and  the  practical 
lines  for  main  and  branch  drains,  which  are  consistent  with  the 
existing  drains,  and  with  the  engineering  requirements  as  mentioned 
above,  and  also  with  other  local  requirements  which  are  not  at 
present  apparent  to  us. 


s 

SUBDRAINAGE  SYSTEM. 

The  necessity  for  pumping  and  treating  the  sewage  makes  it,  of 
course,  economical  to  prevent  from  getting  into  the  sewers  any 
water  that  is  not  foul  and  does  not  require  purification.  It  is, 
therefore,  advisable  to  prevent  sub-soil  water,  as  much  as  possible, 
from  finding  its  way  into  them.  These  should,  therefore,  be  con¬ 
structed  as  water-tight  as  practicable.  But,  inasmuch  as  a  sub¬ 
drainage  of  the  soil  is  desired,  and  is  in  fact  necessary  in  some  parts 
of  the  city  so  as  to  prevent  wet  cellars,  a  proper  provision  should 
be  made  for  it. 

In  the  higher  parts  of  the  city,  a  collection  of  the  sub-soil  water 
will  not  be  difficult.  Where  required,  special  drains  can  be  laid 
with  sufficient  depth  to  accomplish  this  purpose  and  discharge  into 
the  rain-water  drains  at  a  sufficient  height  so  that  an  annoyance 
by  back  water  during  heavy  storms  will  not  be  felt. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


195 


In  the  low  sections  of  the  city,  however,  near  the  wharves,  a 
different  treatment  is  necessary.  The  sewers  in  that  section  of  the 
city  will  he  built  below  tide  level,  and  low  enough  to  collect  the 
sub-soil  water.  Inasmuch  as  it  would  occupy  space  of  the  inter¬ 
ceptor  intended  for  sewage  removal,  and  also  require  pumping  and 
delivery  at  the  filtration  area,  it  is  best  not  to  use  the  sewerage 
system  for  its  collection.  A  separate  system  of  sub-soil  drains  can 
be  readily  laid  in  that  part  of  the  city  to  comply  with  the  demands 
of  cellar  drainage.  The  water  would  undoubtedly  have  to  be  col¬ 
lected  below  high  water  level,  and  it  would,  therefore,  be  necessary 
to  pump  it.  Unless  other  and  special  provisions  can  be  made,  it 
will  be  found  best  to  lay  these  sub-drains  when  building  the  low 
level  interceptor,  one  on  each  side,  and  deliver  the  sub-soil  water 
also  at  the  pumping  station,  where  special  pumps  can  lift  it  and 
discharge  it  into  the  harbor. 

The  additional  expense  of  thus  treating  the  sub-soil  question  in 
the  low  parts  of  the  city  will,  therefore,  not  be  very  great.  The 
plan  of  the  pumping  station  includes  a  provision  for  pumping  this 
water  from  the  low  territory  between  Washington  street  in  the 
east,  to  Gwynn’s  Falls  in  the  west. 

The  allowance  made  for  the  quantity  of  sub-soil  water  which 
may  enter  these  special  drains  of  the  low  territory,  as  discussed 
above  in  Section  “  E,”  is  1,200  gallons  per  acre  per  day.  The  sizes 
of  the  drains,  where  built  along  the  interceptors,  range  from  8 
inches  to  24  inches  diameter  on  each  side,  and  the  branches  should 
gradually  dimmish  to  8  inches  diameter. 

The  allowance  which  it  was  thought  proper  to  make  for  the 
leakage  of  sub-soil  water  into  the  sewerage  system  itself,  and  which 
would  therefore  reach  the  interceptors,  is  fixed  at  160  gallons  per 
acre  per  day. 


T 

ESTIMATES  OP  COST  OP  THE  SEWERAGE  SYSTEM. 

No  soundings  of  the  ground  nor  special  surveys  have  been  made 
for  the  purpose  of  estimating  the  cost  of  the  works  that  have 
received  consideration.  The  character  of  the  foundations  has  been 
determined  only  from  general  information.  We  have  endeavored 
to  make  the  estimate  of  cost  on  a  safe  basis  where  uncertainties 
exist.  The  unit  prices  are  ample  and  some  of  them  may  perhaps  be 
reduced. 


196 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  cost  of  the  local  or  district  sewers,  collecting  the  sewage  from 
buildings,  is  the  same  for  any  system  of  disposal.  A  detailed  design 
of  the  local  system  was  neither  contemplated  nor  practicable  with 
the  information  on  hand.  As  it  is  usual  for  the  adjoining  properties 
to  be  assessed  for  the  cost  of  local  sewers,  we  further  considered  it 
to  be  of  no  value  in  arriving  at  the  expense  of  interception  and 
disposal,  after  the  sewage  had  been  collected,  which  expense  alone 
falls  upon  the  city  at  large. 

As  the  important  questions  before  us  related  to  the  best  manner 
of  interception  and  disposal,  we  give  the  cost  of  the  local  or  district 
sewers  per  square  mile  of  territory,  and  we  selected  two  conditions, 
namely,  the  densely  built-up  parts  and  the  suburban  parts  of  the 
city.  The  cost  is  based  in  both  cases  upon  the  average  length  of 
streets  and  alleys  within  a  square  mile  and  included  both  mains 
and  laterals.  The  excavation  is  supposed  to  be  in  earth  and  all 
works  done  in  a  thorough  manner.  House  pipes  are  not  included, 
but  merely  a  Y  branch  in  the  sewer  at  which  they  connect.  All 
streets  are  supposed  to  have  been  paved. 

This  information  will  be  sufficiently  close  to  gain  a  fair  idea  of  the 
expense  in  any  district  which  it  is  desired  to  sewer. 

We  have  assumed  that  in  the  business  districts  there  will  be  about 
thirty  miles  of  sewers,  and  in  the  suburban  districts  about  ten  miles 
of  sewers  in  a  square  mile.  The  cost  per  square  mile  in  the  former 
would  be  about  $480,000,  and  in  the  latter  about  $110,000. 

The  estimates  of  cost  for  the  interception  and  disposal  of  the 
sewage  has  been  made,  both  for  immediate  needs,  and  for  such  a 
time  when  one  million  persons  contribute  to  it.  The  former  repre¬ 
sents  the  amount  of  money  required  for  the  different  projects  at  the 
outset;  the  latter,  for  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  eventual  cost 
of  the  several  projects  which  have  been  examined. 

Statement  A  gives  the  expense  of  constructing  the  works,  State¬ 
ment  B,  the  annual  expense  of  operating  them,  the  interest,  re¬ 
newals,  etc.  The  latter  statement  allows  a  fair  comparison  to  be 
made  between  the  economy  of  the  several  projects. 

Some  parts  of  the  work,  when  once  built,  will  answer  for  all 
time,  so  far  as  their  capacity  is  concerned.  The  interceptors,  for 
instance,  are  expected  always  to  serve  the  territory  for  which  they 
are  intended.  The  outfall  sewer  of  the  dilution  and  precipitation 
projects  would  at  once  answer  for  discharging  the  sewage  from  one 
million  people.  Some  parts  will  have  to  be  added  to  later,  such 
as  the  pumping  machinery.  Still  other  parts  may  have  to  be 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


197 


abandoned  later,  should,  for  instance,  a  temporary  chemical  dis¬ 
posal  plant  be  placed  on  the  shore  of  the  Tatapsco  River,  near  the 
line  of  the  discharge  mains  to  Glen  Burnie. 

A  summary  of  the  estimates  of  cost  is  inserted  herewith.  The 
detailed  estimates  of  cost  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  the  dilution  project  is  the  least  expensive  one,  both 
for  immediate  and  future  needs.  The  filtration  project  is  the  most 
expensive  one  in  both  cases. 

Were  the  basis  of  cost  to  be  the  only  criterion  upon  which  to 
reach  a  decision,  the  project  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  by  dilution 
in  Chesapeake  Bay  would  have  to  be  preferred. 


SUMMARY  OF  ESTIMATES  OF  COST. 


1.  Dilution  : 


Project. 


a.  For  immediate  needs  .  . 

b.  For  one  million  persons 


A 

Construction, 
Total  Cost. 


B 

Maintenance,  Inter¬ 
est  and  Renewals 
per  annum. 


$3,880,167  $213,700 

5,129,167  290,460 


2.  Precipitation  : 

a.  For  immediate  needs .  $2,962,000 

b.  For  one  million  persons .  5,503,000 

3.  Filtration  : 

For  immediate  needs  with 


a.  Temporary  precipitation  . .  .  $3,019,012 

b.  Filtration  at  Glen  Burnie. .  .  5,741,007 

c.  For  one  million  persons  ....  12,171,803 


$284,400 

665,000 


$301,355 

402,752 

913,044 


u 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  several  ways  in  which  the  sewage  question,  as  related  to  the 
City  of  Baltimore,  can  be  solved,  have  been  discussed  above.  The 
conditions  which  govern  the  solution  are  clearly  set  forth.  Each 
one  of  the  projects  which  satisfies  them,  has  been  worked  out  so 
as  to  give  results  as  satisfactory  as  practicable. 

The  collection  of  the  sewage  from  private  premises,  wTe  find  to 
be  preferably  accomplished  by  means  of  a  separate  system  of  sewers 
into  which  no  street  water  is  to  be  admitted. 


198 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


The  collection  and  disposal  of  the  rain-water  we  find  should  be 
accomplished  substantially  in  the  same  manner  in  which  it  is  done 
at  present,  with  a  modification  of  some  details. 

The  final  disposal  of  the  sewage  required  the  consideration  of 
three  methods,  which  are  all  applicable  and  according  to  any  of 
which  the  sewage  can  be  disposed  of  without  offense.  Some  of 
them  are  better  than  others. 

We  unhesitatingly  state  that,  irrespective  of  cost,  the  purification 
of  the  sewage  by  filtration  through  sand  is  the  best  method,  because 
it  effectually  destroys  all  decomposable  matter  within  a  short  time 
after  the  sewage  is  delivered  upon  the  fields.  It  enables  the  sewage 
to  increase  the  fertility  of  land  for  agricultural  purposes  and  to 
guard  against  crop  failures  from  droughts.  It  causes  no  objection¬ 
able  results,  either  on  the  fields  themselves,  or  after  the  purified 
sewage  drains  away  from  them,  if  the  works  are  properly  laid  out 
and  fairly  well  managed. 

The  operation  of  filtration  fields  requires  labor  of  no  great  skill, 
and  good  results  can  be  secured  whether  crops  are  raised  or  not. 

Both  the  precipitation  and  dilution  methods  are  less  satisfactory, 
because  in  the  former  case  greater  attention  must  be  given  to  the 
treatment,  if  a  nuisance  is  to  be  prevented,  and  in  the  latter  case 
there  is  a  danger  to  some  of  the  oyster  beds,  and  a  pollution  of  the 
Bay  for  a  considerable  distance  from  the  outlet. 

As  on  the  Berlin  sewage  farms  are  located  public  institutions, 
including  homes  for  convalescents  and  paupers,  who  are  employed 
upon  the  fields,  and  as  the  Rhode  Island  State  Institutions  in 
Cranston  use  their  inmates  to  care  for  the  sewage  farms  connected 
therewith,  so  could  the  filtration  territory  of  Baltimore  contain 
similar  institutions,  upon  which  convict  and  pauper  labor  might  be 
utilized  in  a  very  satisfactory  way  to  materially  reduce  the  cost  of 
distributing  the  sewage  and  for  attending  the  farms. 

We  believe  that  it  is  the  desire  of  your  citizens  to  adopt  the 
best  method  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  and  that  they  are  willing  to 
pay  a  larger  sum  for  it  than  for  others  which  are  less  good.  The 
experience  in  other  cities  has  generally  shown  that  both  precipita¬ 
tion  and  dilution  methods  were  on  the  whole  less  satisfactory  than 
the  filtration  method,  and  they  are  now  recommended  only  for  such 
cities  where  filtration  is  impracticable. 

As  we  fully  believe  that  your  intelligent  citizens  will  not  regret 
a  greater  outlay  for  a  greater  benefit,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  recom¬ 
mend  to  you  the  filtration  system. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


199 


In  closing,  we  desire  to  convey  our  thanks  for  many  courtesies 
received  while  studying  the  problem,  from  yourselves,  from  Mr. 
Kenneth  Allen,  C.  E.,  principal  assistant,  and  Mr.  Rector,  secretary, 
and  from  others  who  have  contributed  information  regarding  the 
subject. 

Respectfully  presented, 

RUDOLPH  HERING, 
SAMUEL  M.  GRAY. 


y 

APPENDIX  I. 

GEOLOGY  OF  BALTIMORE  AND  THE  REGION  ADJACENT 
TO  THE  LOWER  PATAPSCO  RIVER. 


By  Wm.  Bullock  Clark,  State  Geologist. 


The  State  of  Maryland  is  divided  into  three  clearly  defined 
regions,  known  respectively  as  the  Coastal  Plain,  the  Piedmont 
Plateau  and  the  Appalachian  Region,  each  of  which  contains  definite 
physiographic  and  geologic  features  which  characterize  it.  The 
City  of  Baltimore  is  situated  near  the  boundary  line  of  the  first 
two  districts,  its  higher  portions  resting  upon  the  rocks  of  the 
Piedmont  Plateau,  while  its  lower  portions  occupy  the  landward 
border  of  the  Coastal  Plain. 

The  Piedmont  Plateau. 

The  Piedmont  Plateau,  which  lies  along  the  eastern  flank  of  the 
Appalachian  Region  and  occupies  the  country  lying  between  Bal¬ 
timore  and  the  Frederick  Valley,  is  the  southward  extension  of  a 
continent  of  early  geological  time,  the  main  body  of  which  was 
largely  within  the  limits  of  the  British  possessions  of  the  present 
day.  Toward  the  south  it  existed  as  a  narrow  belt  that  continued 
almost  to  the  Gulf  border.  The  rocks  composing  it  are  more  or 
less  crystalline,  while  the  structure  throughout  is  highly  com¬ 
plicated.  Within  the  limits  of  Maryland  the  rocks  of  the  Piedmont 
Plateau  are  divisible  into  two  distinct  classes.  In  the  eastern 


200 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


portion  of  the  region,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  they 
are  completely  crystalline,  physical  and  chemical  changes  of  such 
moment  having  taken  place  in  both  the  ancient  sediments  and  the 
eruptive  rocks  that  penetrate  them  as  to  often  obscure  their  original 
characters.  In  the  western  portion,  on  the  other  hand,  the  rocks 
are  semi-crystalline,  and  while  they  have  been  subjected  to  a  certain 
amount  of  metamorphism  and  alteration,  they  still  plainly  show 
that  they  were  once  sediments  of  an  ordinary  type. 

It  is  upon  the  more  highly  crystalline  rocks  of  the  Piedmont 
Plateau  that  the  City  of  Baltimore  is  situated.  These  various  rock 
masses  may  be  divided  into  six  distinct  types,  three  of  which  are  of 
undoubtedly  eruptive  origin  (gabbro,  peridotite  or  pyroxenite,  and 
granite),  while  the  other  three  (gneiss,  marble  and  quartz-schist), 
although  at  present  exhibiting  no  certain  traces  of  clastic  structure, 
were  probably  sedimentary.  Through  these  latter  rocks  the  erup- 
tives  penetrated. 

The  gneiss  is  the  prevailing  rock  of  this  area.  It  extends  as  a 
band  from  the  northeast  to  the  southwest,  constantly  narrowing 
southward,  and  shows  great  complexity  of  structure.  The  gneiss 
is  sometimes  quite  constant  in  character  for  considerable  distances, 
but  more  usually  it  consists  of  a  succession  of  differently  consti¬ 
tuted  layers.  It  may  have  had  its  origin  in  the  impure  sand 
deposits  of  early  geological  time. 

The  marbles  are  found  intercolated  in  the  gneiss  complex,  occur¬ 
ring  as  irregular  and  disconnected  masses  that  show  at  a  glance  how 
intricate  the  stratigraphy  really  is.  Although  found  to  the  north 
of  Baltimore  and  at  no  place  within  the  city  limits,  they  form  part 
of  the  same  rock  series  and  cannot  be  ignored  in  a  discussion  of  it. 
They  are  much  more  coarsely  and  perfectly  crystalline  than  the  mar¬ 
bles  and  limestones  of  the  more  western  portion  of  the  State,  and 
have  lost  all  evidence  of  an  original  clastic  structure.  On  account 
of  their  greater  solubility  they  have  been  easily  removed  and  now 
form  depressions  as  the  Green  Spring,  Dulaney  and  other  valleys 
which  are  sharply  bounded  by  the  surrounding  ridges  of  gneiss. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  gneiss,  it  is  highly  probable  they  were  origin¬ 
ally  sedimentary  accumulations  rich  in  carbonate  of  lime. 

The  least  important  of  the  rocks  of  probable  sedimentary  origin 
in  the  Baltimore  region,  is  the  peculiar  quartz-schist  composed 
chiefly  of  quartz  and  divided  into  beds  of  various  thicknesses  by 
parallel  layers  of  muscovite.  The  quartz  grains  are  of  different 
sizes,  but  are  so  completely  re-crystallized  that  they  form  an  inter- 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


201 


locking  mosaic.  The  quartz -schist  never  attains  any  great  thick¬ 
ness.  Whatever  the  origin  of  the  quartz-schist  may  have  been,  it 
is  closely  allied  to  the  gneiss  into  which  it  grades  by  imperceptible 
transitions.  It  is,  however,  always  sharply  defined  against  the 
limestones.  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  rock  represents  facies  of 
the  gneiss  produced  by  some  dynamic  agency. 

The  .three  types  of  eruptives  have  all  broken  through  and  have 
more  or  less  modified  the  rocks  just  described,  and  are  hence 
younger  in  age.  The  oldest,  as  well  as  the  most  extensive  of  the 
three  eruptive  rocks  which  so  abundantly  intrude  the  gneiss  com¬ 
plex,  is  the  gabbro.  Its  black  color  has  given  to  it  locally  the 
name  of  “  nigger -head  rock.”  The  action  of  pressure  which  has 
caused  the  re-crystallization  of  the  gneiss  and  marble  is  also  very 
marked  in  the  gabbro.  It  has  caused  its  iron  magnesian  con¬ 
stituent  pyroxene,  to  change  to  another  green  mineral  called  horn¬ 
blende.  This  has  in  some  cases  left  the  rock  as  massive  as  before, 
and  in  other  cases  it  has  rendered  it  schistose.  This  resulting  rock 
is  called  gabbro-diorite. 

The  next  eruptive  rocks  in  point  of  age  are  the  basic-magnesia 
silicates,  peridotite  and  pyroxenite  and  their  alteration  products 
serpentine  and  steatite.  These  rocks  are  intimately  associated  with 
the  gabbros.  They  do  not  occur  in  as  large  masses  as  the  other 
eruptive  rocks,  but  occupy  numerous  smaller  areas. 

The  youngest  intrusive  rocks  are  the  granites.  They  also  form 
numerous  detached  masses.  The  granites  are  so  like  the  surround¬ 
ing  gneiss  in  chemical,  as  well  as  mineralogical,  composition  that 
when  they  have  been  greatly  foliated  through  dynamic  action  it 
becomes  a  matter  of  no  small  difficulty  to  distinguish  them.  The 
gneisses  of  the  Baltimore  region  are  penetrated  with  a  great  abun¬ 
dance  of  dykes,  veins  and  “  eyes  ”  of  the  coarse-grained  granite 
known  as  pegmatite.  The  other  crystalline  rocks  of  the  region, 
although  to  a  less  extent,  contain  the  same  material. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  ancient  rocks  which  form  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  City  of  Baltimore  is  situated  exhibit  a 
great  variety  of  types  which  show  highly  complicated  structures. 
They  were  very  fully  studied  by  the  late  Prof.  Geo.  H.  Williams, 
and  the  above  statements  are  very  largely  adapted  from  his 
writings. 

The  Coastal  Plain. 

The  Piedmont  Plateau  is  overlain  upon  its  eastern  margin  by  a 
series  of  geological  formations  of  much  more  recent  date,  the  mate- 


202 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


rial  out  of  which  they  are  formed  having  been  for  the  most  part 
derived  from  the  more  ancient  rocks  to  the  westward.  These  mate¬ 
rials  were  carried  down  by  the  streams  from  the  old  continent  and 
distributed  by  currents  along  the  margin  of  the  continent,  at  the 
time  when  the  old  shore-line  was  found  in  the  vicinity  of  the  City  of 
Baltimore.  These  later  sediments  form  a  series  of  thin  beds  which 
are  inclined  slightly  to  the  eastward,  so  that  successively  later 
formations  are  found  in  passing  from  the  interior  toward  the  coast. 
Although  deposition  undoubtedly  went  on  throughout  these  later 
periods  along  the  margin  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau,  oscillations  of 
the  sea  floor  were  constantly  going  on,  so  that  the  formations  along 
their  landward  margins  were  constantly  raised  above  the  level  of 
the  water  and  subjected  to  eroding  influences.  As  a  result,  these 
deposits,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau,  present  much 
complexity.  Furthermore,  the  denuding  effects  of  more  recent  time 
have  left  numerous  remnants  of  them  as  detached  masses  upon  the 
old  crystalline  rocks. 

The  later  formations  are  composed  of  a  succession  of  sands,  clays, 
and  marls  that  carry  with  them  the  remains  of  the  animal  and 
plant  life  that  were  entombed  at  the  time  they  were  deposited.  The 
evidence  presented  by  the  succession  of  organic  forms,  together 
with  the  varying  physical  conditions  of  deposition,  afford  criteria 
upon  which  a  satisfactory  classification  of  the  formations  may  be 
made. 

The  Cretaceous  (Potomac). 

The  oldest  of  the  Coastal  Plain  formations  is  of  lower  Cretaceous 
age,  and  is  known  as  the  Potomac  formation.  It  directly  overlies 
the  crystalline  rocks  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau  and  is  to  a  considera¬ 
ble  extent  formed  of  debris  from  them.  The  deposits  consist 
chiefly  of  sands  and  clays  with  gravels  at  certain  points  where  the 
shore  accumulations  are  still  preserved.  Throughout  the  lower 
members  there  is  a  constant  alternation  of  sandy  and  claj^ey  layers 
.which  also  show  a  horizontal  gradation  into  one  another.  The 
sandy  layers  are  often  much  limited  in  extent,  being  commonly 
found  as  lenticular  masses,  which  rapidly  diminish  in  thickness  from 
their  centres.  Highly  colored  and  variegated  clays  are  found  in  the 
upper  portion  of  the  lower  Potomac,  and  have  yielded  large 
amounts  of  nodular  carbonate  of  iron.  The  upper  Potomac  is  com¬ 
posed  of  more  persistent  beds  of  clay  and  sand,  the  prevailing  de¬ 
posit  being  a  moderately  coarse  white  sand  that  at  times  exceeds 
one  hundred  feet  in  thickness. 


203 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

The  Potomac  formation  constitutes  the  main  portion  of  the  long 
necks  which  extend  eastwardly  from  Baltimore,  burying  from  view 
the  rocks  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau  and  in  turn  underlying  the  more 
superficial  deposits  of  recent  geological  date.  The  ancient  crystal¬ 
line  floor  upon  which  these  deposits  rest  reaches  a  constantly  deeper 
level  in  passing  from  its  eastern  edge  beneath  the  Coastal  Plain. 
Although  frequently  out-cropping  in  the  centre  of  the  city,  and  in 
the  regions  to  the  north  and  south  of  the  same,  these  old  rocks  are 
found  several  hundred  feet  below  the  surface  at  the  eastern  exten¬ 
sion  of  all  the  necks  adjacent  to  the  Patapsco  River.  The  Back 
River  and  Patapsco  River  necks  differ  very  materially  in  their 
geological  structure  from  those  to  the  south  of  the  Patapsco  in  that 
the  upper  sandy  members  of  the  upper  Potomac  formation  are 
entirely  wanting  from  the  former,  while  they  occur  in  their  full  and 
normal  development  in  the  area  of  Stony  and  Rock  Creeks  in  the 
Magothy  peninsula,  and  throughout  the  region  to  the  south  of  it. 

The  later  formations  of  upper  Cretaceous  and  Tertiary  age, 
succeeding  the  Potomac  formation  in  the  eastern  section  of  the 
State,  and  with  here  and  there  scattered  remnants  reaching  almost 
to  the  borders  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau,  are  wanting  in  the  region 
now  under  discussion.  That  most,  if  not  all,  of  them  formerly 
reached  well  within  the  limits  of  the  city  there  can  be  but  little 
question,  but  they  have  long  since  been  removed  by  the  processes  of 
erosion.  The  deposits  of  the  latest  geological  epoch  are,  however, 
fully  represented  and  will  be  further  described. 

/ 

The  Pleistocene  (Columbia). 

Superficially  overlying  the  other  formations  of  the  Coastal  Plain 
are  deposits  of  Pleistocene  age  which  have  been  described  under 
the  name  of  the  Columbia  formation.  They  consist  of  gravels,  sands 
and  clays.  They  nowhere  attain  any  great  thickness,  but  give 
evidence  of  rapid  accumulation  in  a  geological  epoch  of  short  dura¬ 
tion  as  compared  with  the  Cretaceous  and  Tertiary  periods  pre¬ 
viously  mentioned.  The  deposits  give  evidence  of  two  periods  of 
submergence,  during  which  the  deep  valleys,  which  had  been 
carved  out  in  late  Tertiary  time,  were  to  a  considerable  extent 
blocked  with  debris,  which  has,  up  to  the  present,  never  been 
wholly  removed.  The  earliest  of  these  submergences  reached  well 
within  the  present  limits  of  the  city,  admitting  of  the  deposition 
of  considerable  deposits  of  gravel  and  sand  over  the  uneven  sea  floor 
composed  both  of  crystalline  rock  and  Potomac  strata.  After  an 


204 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


interim  of  brief  elevation  came  a  second  submergence,  of  less  extent, 
which  covered  the  lower  elevations  within  and  to  the  east  of  the 
city,  the  sands  and  loams  which  were  deposited  forming  a  superfi¬ 
cial  coating  of  the  country.  The  Columbia  deposits,  both  of  earlier 
and  later  date,  have  already  been  removed  by  natural  processes 
from  considerable  sections  of  the  country,  both  within  and  to  the 
east  of  the  city,  laying  bare,  as  in  the  vicinity  of  Stony  and  Rock 
Creeks,  the  great  deposits  of  sand  of  the  upper  Potomac. 

This  brief  statement  of  the  geology  of  the  Baltimore  area  would 
be  incomplete  without  some  mention  of  the  history  of  the  Patapsco 
River  and  its  branches.  Although  that  portion  of  the  river  system 
which  crosses  the  crystalline  rocks  of  the  Piedmont  Plateau  may 
have  existed  prior  to  the  submergence  which  brought  about  the 
deposition  of  the  Potomac  formation,  yet  its  eastward  extension, 
across  the  deposits  of  the  Coastal  Plain,  is  of  far  more  recent 
origin.  As  was  mentioned  above,  the  carving  out  of  the  present 
valleys  was  accomplished  by  the  streams  at  or  near  the  close  of  the 
Tertiary.  At  that  time  the  waters  of  the  Susquehanna  passed 
through  the  valley  of  the  present  Chesapeake  Bay  to  and  beyond 
the  Capes,  while  the  Patapsco  River  flowed  in  a  deep  valley  to  the 
main  stream.  Since  that  time  various  oscillations,  recorded  in  the 
deposits  of  the  Columbia  formation,  took  place,  finally  leaving  the 
Chesapeake  Bay  and  the  lower  portion  of  the  Patapsco  as  sub¬ 
merged  valleys  of  the  ancient  rivers.  As  in  the  case  of  many  of 
the  other  streams  of  the  Coastal  Plain,  they  become  far  less  exten¬ 
sive  bodies  of  water,  and  even  insignificant  streams,  after  the  head 
of  tide  has  been  reached.  It  is  also  probable  that  along  the  line 
(so-called  “  Fall  line  ”)  separating  the  Coastal  Plain  from  the  Pied¬ 
mont  Plateau  a  further  depression  took  place  in  late  geological 
time  to  more  fully  accentuate  the  difference. 

From  this  brief  summary  it  will  be  seen  that  the  City  of  Balti¬ 
more  and  its  vicinity  comprises  geological  formations  of  widely 
different  age  and  character,  and  has  passed  through  a  long  cycle 
of  varying  physiographic  and  geologic  changes. 


APPENDIX  II. 

List  of  rainfalls  occurring  during  the  past  25  years  or  more  in 
Baltimore  and  other  places  in  Maryland,  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  and 
in  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  having  a  duration  of  10  minutes  or  more,  and 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


205 


a  rate  equal  to  or  greater  than  one  inch  per  hour.  Some  storms  of 
long  duration,  but  of  less  rate  than  one  inch  per  hour,  have  also 
been  added.  The  storms  marked  by  a  star  (*)  were  recorded  by 
automatic  gauges,  and  in  such  cases  storms  of  less  rate  than  two 
inches  per  hour  have  been  excluded. 

Amount  Duration  Rate  in 
Place.  State.  Date.  in  inches 


*  Washington,  D.  C..  . 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  .  . 
Washington,  D.  0. .  . 

“Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 
Chestertown,  Md.  . . . 
Washington,  D.  C. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 
“Washington,  D.  C. 
Washington,  D.  C. . . . 
Washington,  D.  C. . . . 

*  Washington,  D.  C... . 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

“Washington,  D.  C _ 

*  Baltimore,  Md . 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

“Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 
“Washington,  D.  C... . 

“Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  0 _ 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  .  . . 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

“Philadelphia,  Pa.  . .  . 
“Washington,  D.  C.... 
“Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 

Washing-ton,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C.... 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

“Baltimore,  Md . 

Washington,  D.  C _ 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . . 
“Baltimore,  Md.  ..... 


June 

30, 

1895 

July 

23, 

1887 

July 

26, 

1886 

April 

16, 

1891 

August 

31, 

1888 

August 

15, 

1894 

August 

10, 

1878 

August 

8, 

1888 

August 

6, 

1889 

Sept. 

16, 

1888 

Sept. 

3, 

1882 

July 

2, 

1890 

Sept. 

12, 

1887 

July 

1, 

1884 

July 

28, 

1877 

August 

1, 

1890 

July 

16, 

1895 

August 

6, 

1889 

April 

28, 

1878 

August 

21, 

1890 

July 

14, 

1892 

June 

21, 

1891 

July 

29, 

1877 

May 

20, 

1889 

August 

4, 

1889 

June 

7, 

1881 

April 

16, 

1891 

July 

15, 

1891 

August 

28, 

1891 

August 

25, 

1885 

August 

9, 

1889 

June 

10, 

1876 

Sept. 

21, 

1882 

July 

15, 

1886 

August 

6, 

1878 

July 

9, 

1888 

Sept. 

8, 

1894 

May 

27, 

1882 

Feb. 

18, 

1887 

August 

31, 

1895 

inches. 

H. 

M. 

per  hour. 

1.06 

0 

10 

6.36 

0.92 

0 

13 

4.25 

0.70 

0 

10 

4.20 

0.67 

0 

10 

4.02 

0.80 

0 

12 

4.00 

1.85 

0 

30 

3.70 

0.80 

0 

13 

3.69 

0.90 

0 

15 

3.60 

0.60 

0 

10 

3.60 

1.19 

0 

20 

3.57 

1.03 

0 

18 

3.43 

0.57 

0 

10 

3.42 

0.62 

0 

11 

3.38 

0.56 

0 

10 

3.36 

0.78 

0 

14 

3.34 

0.55 

0 

10 

3.30 

0.55 

0 

10 

3.30 

0.55 

0 

10 

3.30 

0.82 

0 

15 

3.28 

0.53 

0 

10 

3.18 

0.53 

0 

10 

3.18 

0.52 

0 

10 

3.12 

1.44 

0 

28 

3.09 

1.00 

0 

20 

3.00 

1.00 

0 

20 

3.00 

0.60 

0 

12 

3.00 

0.50 

0 

10 

3.00 

0.50 

0 

10 

3.00 

0.50 

0 

10 

3.00 

0.50 

0 

10 

3.00 

0.50 

0 

10 

3.00 

1.98 

0 

40 

2.97 

1.20 

0 

25 

2.88 

0.72 

0 

15 

2.88 

1.00 

0 

21 

2.86 

0.99 

0 

21 

2.83 

0.47 

0 

10 

2.82 

0.70 

0 

15 

2.80 

0.51 

0 

11 

2.76 

0.46 

0 

10 

2.76 

206 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Place.  State. 

Washington,  D.  0 _ August 

"Washington,  D.  C _ July 

* Washington,  D.  C _ June 

*  Washington,  D.  0 _ Sept. 

*  Washington,  D.  C _ October 

*  Baltimore,  Md . May 

"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  May 
"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  August 

Washington,  D.  C _ June 

Washington,  D.  C _ June 

Washington,  D.  C _ July 

Washington,  D.  0. . . .  July 
"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  Sept. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  July 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  July 

Washington,  D.  0 _ October 

Washington,  D.  C _ July 

"Washington,  D.  0 _ June 

"Baltimore,  Md . August 

"Baltimore,  Md . June 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  ...  Nov. 
Pocomoke  City,  Md. .  April 

Washington,  D.  C _ August 

Washington,  D.  C _ Sept. 

Washington,  D.  C _ August 

"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  July 
Woodstock  Coll.,  Md.May 

Washington,  D.  C _ June 

Washington,  D.  C _ June 

Washington,  D.  C _ July 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  July 
Barren  Crk.  Spgs.,  Md.May 
Washington,  D.  C....  July 

Baltimore,  Md . July 

"Washington,  D.  C _ April 

"Baltimore,  Md . July 

"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  April 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  June 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  July 

Wood  Lawn,  Md . August 

"Washington,  D.  C....  June 

"Washington,  D.  C _ May 

"Washington,  D.  C _ Nov. 

"Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  Sept. 

Washington,  D.  C _ June 

Washington,  D.  C....  June 
Washington,  D.  C....  July 


Amount 

Duration 

Rate  in 

ate. 

in 

inches 

inches. 

H. 

M. 

per  hour. 

5, 

1878 

2.08 

0 

46 

2.71 

1, 

1889 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

22, 

1890 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

11, 

1890 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

19, 

1891 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

23, 

1894 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

28, 

1894 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

2, 

1894 

0.45 

0 

10 

2.70 

7, 

1881 

1.61 

0 

36 

2.67 

3, 

1883 

0.66 

0 

15 

2.64 

17, 

1883 

0.79 

0 

18 

2.63 

1, 

1889 

0.65 

0 

15 

2.60 

14, 

1892 

0.43 

0 

10 

2.58 

23, 

1887 

1.86 

0 

44 

2.54 

6, 

1884 

0.50 

0 

12 

2.52 

4, 

1877 

1.08 

0 

26, 

2.49 

18, 

1871 

0.83 

0 

20 

2.49 

27, 

1892 

0.40 

0 

10 

2.40 

29, 

1893 

0.40 

0 

10 

2.40 

12, 

1894 

0.40 

0 

10 

2.40 

23, 

1884 

0.40 

0 

10 

2.40 

27, 

1895 

1.59 

0 

40 

2.38 

11, 

1887 

0.71 

0 

18 

2.37 

25, 

1872 

1.18 

0 

30 

2.36 

21, 

1888 

0.59 

0 

15 

2.36 

3, 

1892 

0.39 

0 

10 

2.34 

19, 

1878 

2.00 

0 

52 

2.31 

23, 

1888 

0.50 

0 

13 

2.31 

3, 

1883 

0.46 

0 

12 

2.30 

3, 

1871 

1.13 

0 

30 

2.26 

23, 

1887 

2.25 

1 

00 

2.25 

20, 

1889 

2.25 

1 

00 

2.25 

29, 

1878 

0.95 

0 

26 

2.19 

11, 

1884 

3.75 

1 

43 

2.18 

11, 

1891 

0.36 

0 

10 

2.16 

6, 

1894 

0.36 

0 

10 

2.16 

9, 

1895 

0.36 

0 

10 

2.16 

12, 

1895 

0.36 

0 

10 

2.16 

26, 

1887 

1.16 

0 

33 

2.11 

11, 

1875 

2.10 

1 

00 

2.10 

10, 

1889 

0.35 

0 

10 

2.10 

30, 

1890 

0.35 

0 

10 

2.10 

23, 

1891 

0.35 

0 

10 

2.10 

8, 

1894 

0.35 

0 

10 

2.10 

27, 

1885 

0.35 

0 

10 

2.10 

14, 

1888 

0.38 

0 

11 

2.07 

30, 

1878 

1.10 

0 

32 

2.06 

FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

207 

Amount 

Duration 

l  Rate  in 

Place.  State. 

Date. 

in 

inches 

inches. 

H. 

M. 

per  hour. 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  Sept.  16-17, 

1888 

0.55 

0 

16 

2.06 

*Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  August 

25, 

1892 

0.34 

0 

10 

2.04 

*Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  Sept. 

14, 

1892 

0.34 

0 

10 

2.04 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  August 

23, 

1888 

0.34 

0 

10 

2.04 

Fort  McHenry,  Md. 

.  July 

n, 

1884 

3.54 

1 

45 

2.02 

Sandy  Springs,  Md. . 

.July 

5, 

1880 

5.00 

2 

30 

2.00 

Cambridge,  Md . 

.July 

31, 

1893 

4.00 

2 

00 

2.00 

Sandy  Springs,  Md. 

•  July 

19, 

1878 

2.00 

1 

00 

2.00 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  August 

11, 

1873 

1.00 

0 

30 

2.00 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.August 

3, 

1885 

2.80 

1 

25 

1.98 

^Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  Sept. 

5, 

1891 

0.33 

0 

10 

1.98 

^Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  June 

21, 

1892 

0.33 

0 

10 

1.98 

Washington,  D.  C. .. 

.  July 

21, 

1886 

0.46 

0 

14 

1.97 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  August 

31, 

1889 

1.17 

0 

36 

1.95 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  August 

18, 

1875 

0.78 

0 

24 

1.95 

*Washington,  D.  C... 

.  August 

24, 

1891 

0,32 

0 

10 

1.92 

^Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  Sept. 

15, 

1893 

0,32 

0 

10 

1.92 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.July 

29, 

1877 

2.33 

1 

18 

1.78 

Baltimore,  Md . 

.  August 

21, 

1890 

1.96 

1 

10 

1.68 

Emory  Grove,  Md. . . 

.May 

15, 

1879 

5.00 

3 

00 

1.67 

Easton,  Md . 

.  July 

21, 

1894 

3.04 

2 

00 

1.52 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  July 

29, 

1865 

4.92 

3 

15 

1.51 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.July 

6, 

1884 

1.50 

1 

00 

1.50 

Baltimore,  Md . 

.  August 

22, 

1887 

1.74 

1 

10 

1.49 

Washington,  D.  C. .. 

.  October 

4, 

1877 

1.49 

1 

00 

1.49 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  August 

1, 

1878 

1.43 

1 

00 

1.43 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  July 

20, 

1886 

2.23 

1 

35 

1.41 

Woodstock  Coll.,  Md.  August 

21, 

1890 

2.80 

2 

00 

1.40 

Washington,  D.  C. .. 

.  October 

23, 

1875 

1.40 

1 

00 

1.40 

Washington,  D.  C. .. 

.  October 

23, 

1876 

1.40 

1 

00 

1.40 

Washington,  D.  C. .. 

.  July 

26, 

1879 

1.73 

1 

15 

1.38 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  October 

26, 

1879 

1.73 

1 

15 

1.38 

Emory  Grove,  Md... 

.  October 

22, 

1878 

4.00 

3 

00 

1.33 

Easton,  Md . 

.  Sept. 

19, 

1895 

1.33 

1 

00 

1,33 

Baltimore,  Md . 

.  August 

10, 

1873 

1.30 

1 

00 

1,30 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  August 

9, 

1874 

1.30 

1 

00 

1,30 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  August 

29, 

1874 

1,30 

1 

00 

1.30 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  August 

29, 

1875 

1.30 

1 

00 

1.30 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  July 

26, 

1886 

3.14 

2 

27 

1.28 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  June 

30, 

1895 

1.28 

1 

00 

1.28 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  July 

12, 

1878 

1.27 

1 

00 

1.27 

Solomon’s,  Md . 

.  August 

20, 

1893 

1.47 

1 

10 

1.26 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . 

.  July 

10, 

1876 

1.25 

1 

00 

1.25 

Oldtown,  Md . 

.  August 

6, 

1895 

1.25 

1 

00 

1.25 

Baltimore,  Md . 

.  June 

27, 

1892 

1.23 

1 

00 

1.23 

Washington,  D.  C... 

.  October 

29, 

1885 

1.20 

1 

00 

1.20 

Baltimore,  Md . 

.  Ma  y 

20, 

1889 

1.20 

1 

00 

1.20 

208 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Place.  State.  Date 

Taney  town,  Md . July  1, 

Woodstock  Col.,  Md..  August  22, 
Philadelphia,  Pa.  . . .  August  21, 

Jewell,  Md . Sept.  16, 

Washington,  D.  C —  Sept.  25, 

Baltimore,  Md . June  4, 

Washington,  D.  C _ June  21, 

Fallston,  Md . August  12, 

Baltimore,  Md . August  12, 

Baltimore,  Md . July  31, 

Baltimore,  Md . August  5, 


Fort  McHenry,  Md .  .  May  28, 
West  Wash.,  D.  C.. .  Dec.  24, 

GambrilFs,  Md . August  23, 

Washington,  D.  C _ October  23, 

Washington,  D.  C _ August  6, 

Baltimore,  Md . July  5, 

Washington,  D.  C _ October  4, 

Baltimore,  Md . August  8, 

Frederick,  Md . Sept.  13-14, 

Wood  Lawn,  Md.  . . .  August  18, 

Washington,  D.  C _ Nov.  24, 

Barren  Crk.  Spgs.,  M d.  May  20, 

Sunnyside,  Md . July  27, 

Washington,  D.  C _ July  1, 

Washington,  D.  C _ July  24, 

Washington,  D.  C _ October  4, 

Washington,  D.  C _ July  27, 

Washington,  D.  C _ August  29, 

Washington,  D.  C _ August  1, 


Amount 

Duration 

Rate  in 

in 

inches 

inches. 

II. 

M. 

per  hour. 

1892 

1.20 

1 

00 

1.20 

1887 

1.56 

1 

21 

1.16 

1890 

1.16 

1 

00 

1.16 

1888 

3.75 

3 

15 

1.15 

1872 

2.07 

1 

48 

1.15 

1891 

1.15 

1 

00 

1.15 

1877 

1.64 

1 

26 

1.14 

1893 

2.85 

2 

31 

1.13 

1875 

1.41 

1 

15 

1.13 

1884 

1.40 

1 

15 

1.12 

1888 

*1.12 

1 

00 

1.12 

1882 

2.50 

2 

15 

1.11 

1891 

1.09 

1 

00 

1.09 

1889 

2.13 

2 

00 

1.07 

1876 

1.89 

1 

47 

1.06 

1889 

1.05 

1 

00 

1.05 

1895 

1.05 

1 

00 

1.05 

1877 

2.05 

2 

00 

1.03 

1888 

1.03 

1 

00 

1.03 

1892 

4.07 

4 

00 

1.02 

1875 

2.00 

2 

00 

1.00 

1884 

1.00 

1 

00 

1.00 

1889 

1.00 

1 

00 

1.00 

1894 

1.00 

1 

00 

1.00 

1884 

1.95 

2 

03 

0.95 

1868 

2.30 

2 

30 

0.92 

1877 

2.49 

3 

00 

0.83 

1873 

2.00 

2 

00 

0.80 

1875 

2.30 

3 

25 

0.67 

1875 

2.13 

3 

24 

0.62 

FOE,  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


209 


x 

APPENDIX  III. 

CAPACITY  OF  A  FEW  DRAINS  AND  THE  PROBABLE 

FUTURE  RUN  OFF. 


NOTE. — The  capacities  of  some  of  the  present  drains,  and  the  probable  run-off  from  the 
territories  respectively  drained  by  them,  have  been  computed  as  closely  as  possible,  and  the 
results  are  shown  in  the  following  table  : 


Number  of  Drain. 

Location. 

Size. 

1 

Area  Sq.  Feet. 

_  1 

Mean  Radius. 

Hydraulic  Slope. 

Present  capacity  in 
cu.ft.per  sec.,  run¬ 
ning  full. 

Number  of  acres 

drained. 

Average  Slope  of 

Territory  per  1000. 

Character 

of 

Territory. 

Eventual  Run-off 

in  cu.  ft.  per  sec. 

12 

Penn  Street 
and  Lombard, 

16/  x  8/ 

104.73 

2.52 

0.95# 

1876 

320 

23 

Well  built  up, 
Business, 

519 

658 

25 

Pulaski  Street 
and  Franklin, 

11/  diam. 

95.03 

2.75 

0.8# 

1646 

500 

37 

Sparsely  built  up, 
Well  built  up, 

589 

824 

5 

Calhoun  Street 
and  Mosher, 

U  (V/  diam. 

15.90 

1.125 

3.0# 

240 

121 

23 

Sparsely  built  up, 
Well  built  up, 

173 

240 

57 

Lovegrove  Alley 
and  20th  Street, 

6%'x  6' 

28.27 

1.57 

1.86# 

469 

212 

25 

Well  built  up, 

380 

1 

Cor.  Carey 
and  Herkimer, 

17'xlO' 

* 

121.42 

2.92 

0.65# 

1979 

593 

25 

Well  built  up, 

865 

1 

Cor.  Bush  and 
Columbia, 

19/  xl0/ 

135.39 

3.00 

0.50# 

1973 

847 

25 

Well  built  up, 

1150 

18- 

Broadway ;  cor. 
Lombard  &  Ann 

3/  0" 

7.068 

0.75 

1.58# 

70 

68 

24 

Well  built  up, 

113 

Cor.  Ann  &  Gough, 

3'  3" 

8.295  0.81 

1.8# 

93 

83 

25 

Well  built  up, 

183 

l 

Cor.  Eastern  Ave., 

4/  0" 

12.566  1.00 

1.0# 

123 

131 

23 

Well  built  up, 

255 

Y 

APPENDIX  IY. 

ESTIMATES  OF  COST. 

A. — Summaries  for  Construction. 

1.  Dilution  Project : 

a.  All  interceptors,  pumping  station,  force  main  and  tlie  outfall 
sewer  are  sufficient  for  the  sewage  from  one  million  persons;  the 


210 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


outlet  pipe  and  pumping  machinery  are  for  about  one-third  of  the 
same. 


Pumping  station  at  Front  and 


Lombard  streets  .  $69,880.00 

Pumping  machinery .  90,000.00 

Boilers .  6,400.00 

Force  main,  48"  cast-iron  pipe, 

3,630  feet  . 39,950.00 

High  level  interceptor .  1,029,760.00 

Low  level  interceptor  .  413,110.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  165,909.00 

York  street  interceptor .  42,598.00 

Outfall  sewer,  City  line  to  Ches¬ 
apeake  Bay .  1,722,560.00 

Outlet  pipe  in  the  Bay,  5,000 
lineal  feet .  300,000.00 


Total 


$3,880,167.00 


b.  All  works  are  for  one  million  persons. 


Pumping  station  at  Front  and 

Lombard  streets .  $69,880.00 

Pumping  machinery .  135,000.00 

Boilers  .  10,400.00 

Force  mains,  48"  cast-iron  pipe, 

3,630  feet  .  39,950.00 

High  level  interceptor  .  1,029,760.00 

Low  level  interceptor .  413,110.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  165,909.00 

York  street  interceptor .  42,598.00 

Outfall  sewer,  City  line  to  Ches¬ 
apeake  Bay  .  1,722,560.00 

Two  outlet  pipes,  each  5,000 

feet  long .  600,000.00 

Two  outlet  pipes,  extended  to  18 
feet  of  water,  7,500  feet .  900,000.00 


Total 


$5,129,167.00 


2.  Precipitation  Project. 

a.  All  interceptors,  pumping  station,  force  main  and  the  outfall 
sewer  are  sufficient  for  the  sewage  from  one  million  persons;  the 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


211 


tanks,  buildings  and  all  machinery  are  for  about  one-tliird  of  the 


same. 

Pumping  station  at  Front  and 

Lombard  streets  . $69,880.00 

rumping  machinery .  90,000.00 

Boilers  .  6,400.00 

Force  main,  48"  cast-iron  pipe, 

3,630  feet  .  39,950.00 

High  level  interceptor .  1,029,760.00 

Low  level  interceptor .  413,110.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  165,909.00 

York  street  interceptor .  42,598.00 

Outfall  sewer,  City  line  to  tanks.  383,787.00 

Precipitation  tanks .  630,510.00 

Building  and  machinery .  90,096.00 

Total  .  $2,962,000.00 

b.  All  works  are  for  one  million  persons. 

Pumping  station  at  Front  and 

Lombard  streets  . .  $69,880.00 

Pumping  machinery .  135,000.00 

Boilers .  10,400.00 

Force  main,  48"  cast-iron  pipe, 

3,630  feet  .  39,950.00 

High  level  interceptor  .  1,029,760.00 

Low  level  interceptor .  413,110.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  165,909.00 

York  street  interceptor  .  42,598.00 

Outfall  sewer,  City  line  to  tanks,  383,787.00 

Precipitation  tanks .  1,682,510.00 

Buildings  and  machinery .  280,096.00 

Outfall  sewer,  from  tanks  to 
Chesapeake  Bay .  1,250,000.00 

Total  . .  $5,503,000.00 


3.  Filtration  Project. 

a.  All  interceptors,  the  pumping  station  and  force  mains  are  for 
the  sewage  of  one  million  persons ;  the  tanks  and  machinery  are  for 
temporary  precipitation. 


212 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Pumping  station  and  accessories  $262, 000.00 
Pumping  machinery :  three  30,- 

000,000  gallon  pumps .  135,000.00 

Boilers,  two  500  horse  power  .  .  10,000.00 

Force  mains,  pumping  station  to 

tanks  .  816,450.00 

Interceptors,  as  per  b .  1,410,474.00 

Precipitation  tanks .  288,992.00 

Buildings  and  machinery .  90,096.00 

Total .  $3,019,012.00 


b.  All  interceptors  and  the  pumping  station  are  sufficient  for  the 
sewage  from  one  million  persons;  the  filtration  fields,  discharge 
mains  and  pumping  machinery  are  for  about  one-tliird  of  the  same. 


Land  for  filtration,  1,884  acres. .  $94,200.00 

Preparing  1,216  acres  .  1,262,203.00 

Buildings  and  utensils  for  6 

stations  .  40,000.00 

Force  and  gravity  mains .  1,445,770.00 

Tunnel,  8,000  lineal  feet .  811,360.00 

Pumping  station  and  accessories  262,000.00 

Pumping  machinery .  383,000.00 

Boilers .  32,000.00 

Eastern  low  level  interceptor..  570,078.00 

Western  low  level  interceptor. .  129,834.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  165,909.00 

York  street  interceptor .  42,598.00 

Eastern  high  level  interceptor.  299,490.00 

Western  high  level  interceptor.  202,565.00 


Total 


$5,741,007.00 


c.  All  works  are  for  one  million  persons. 

Land  for  filtration,  5,384  acres.  $269,200.00 


Preparing  3,766  acres  .  3,416,773.00 

Buildings  and  utensils  for  18 

stations  .  120,000.00 

Force  and  gravity  mains .  4,614,984.00 

Tunnel,  8,000  lineal  feet .  811,360.00 

Tunnel,  3,400  lineal  feet .  429,012.00 

Pumping  station  and  accessories  262,000.00 

Carried  forward . $9,923,329.00 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


213 


Brought  forward . $9, 923, 329.00 

Pumping  machinery .  758,000.00 

Boilers  .  80,000.00 

Eastern  low  level  interceptor. . .  570,078.00 

Western  low  level  interceptor.  .  129,834.00 

Locust  Point  interceptor .  105,909.00 

York  street  interceptor  .  42,598.00 

Eastern  high  level  interceptor.  .  299,490.00 

Western  high  level  interceptor..  202,565.00 


Total 


112,171,803.00 


B. — Summaries  for  Annual  Maintenance,  Interest  and 

Renewals. 

1.  Dilution  Project . 
a.  For  immediate  needs. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $3,880,167.00  @  1ft . $155,206.68 

Depreciation  and  renewals : 

On  whole  cost,  $3,880,167.00  @  1  <fc . $38,801.67 

On  force  main,  $39,950.00  @  1ft  additional  . .  .  399.50 

On  pumping  machinery,  $90,000  @  2ft  addi¬ 
tional  .  1,800.00 

On  boilers,  $6,400.00  @  1ft  additional .  256.00 

On  siphons,  $101,919.00  @  lft  additional .  1,019.19 

42,276.36 

Cost  of  pumping: 

Per  day: 

Chief  engineer . $3.00 

Assistant  engineer  .  2.50 

Firemen,  2  @  $1.75 .  3.50 

Helpers,  2  @  $1.50 .  3.00 

- $12.00 

Oil  and  waste .  1.20 

Coal,  3.5  net  tons,  @  $3.00 .  10.50 

$23.70 

10ft  .  2.37 

$26.07 

Carried  forward . $197,483.04 


214  REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Brought  forward . $197,483.04 

365  days  @  $26.07  .  9,515.55 

Maintenance  of  interceptors,  4  men  @  $625.00 .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  outfall,  4  men  @  625.00 .  2,500.00 

Dredging  at  outfall,  1,000  cu.  yds.,  .20 .  200.00 

Superintendent  .  1,500.00 

Total  . $213,698.59 


b.  For  one  million  persons. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $5,129,167.00  @4# . $205,166.68 

Depreciation  and  renewals: 

On  whole  cost,  $5,129,167.00  @  1  # . $51,291.67 

On  force  main,  $39,950.00  @  1#  additional. .  .  399.50 

On  pumping  machinery,  $135,000.00  @  2# 

additional  .  2,700.00 

On  boilers,  $10,400.00  @  4#  additional .  416.00 

On  siphons,  $101,919.00  @  1# .  1,019.19 

».  -  $55,826.36 

Cost  of  pumping: 

Per  day: 

Chief  engineer . $3.00 

Assistants,  3  @  $2.50 .  7.50 

Firemen,  4  @  $1.75 .  7.00 

Helpers,  3  @  $1.50 .  4.50 

- $22.00 


Oil  and  waste .  2.20 

Coal,  10.5  net  tons,  @  $3.00 .  31.50 

$55.70 

10#  .  5.57 


$61.27 


365  days  @  $61.27 


22,363.55 


Maintenance  of  interceptors .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  outfall .  2,500.00 

Dredging  at  outfall,  3,000  cu.  yds.  @  20  cts .  600.00 

Superintendent  .  1,500.00 


Total 


$290,456.59 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


215 


2.  Precipitation  Project. 

a.  For  immediate  needs. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $2,962,000.00  @4^ . $118,480.00 

Depreciation  and  renewals: 

On  whole  cost,  $2,962,000.00  @  1£ . $29,620.00 

On  force  main,  $39,950.00  @  ±<j,  additional. .  .  399.50 

On  pumping  machinery,  $90,000.00  @  2</0 

additional  .  1,800.00 

On  boilers,  $6,400.00  @  4^  additional .  256.00 

On  siphons,  $14,994.00  @  1$  additional .  149.94 

On  disposal  works,  $720,606.00  @  5-10  of  1^ 

additional  .  3,603.03 

-  35,828.47 

Cost  of  pumping,  same  as  dilution  project .  9,515.55 

Maintenance  of  interceptors,  4  men  @.  $625.00 .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  disposal  works;  provide  for  333,000 

people  @  35  cts .  116,550.00 

Superintendent .  1,500.00 

Total  . r . . $284,374.02 

b.  For  one  million  persons. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $5,503,000.00  @4 </0 . $220,120.00 

Depreciations  and  renewals: 

On  whole  cost,  $5,503,000.00  @lf0 . . $55,030.00 

On  force  main,  $39,950.00  @  lfo  additional. . .  399.50 

On  pumping  machinery,  $135,000.00  @  2^ 

additional .  2,700.00 

On  boilers,  $10,400.00  @  4^  additional .  416.00 

On  siphons,  $14,994.00  @  Iff,  additional .  149.94 

On  disposal  works,  $1,962,606.00,  \  of  \<f0  addi¬ 
tional  .  9,813.03 

-  68,508.47 

Cost  of  pumping,  same  as  dilution  project .  22,363.55 

Maintenance  of  interceptors .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  disposal  works,  provide  for  1,000,000 

persons  @  35  cts .  350,000.00 

Superintendent  .  1,500.00 

Total  . $664,992.02 


210 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


3.  Filtration  Project. 

a.  For  immediate  needs,  with  temporary  precipitation. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $3,019,012.00  @40 . $120,760.48 


Depreciation  and  renewals: 


On  whole  cost,  $3,019,012.00  @10 . $30,190.12 

On  discharge  mains,  $810,450.00  @  10  addi¬ 
tional  .  8,104.50 

On  pumping  machinery,  $135,000.00  @  20 

additional  .  2,700.00 

On  boilers,  $10,000.00  @  40  additional .  640.00 

On  siphons,  $139,803.00  @  10  additional .  1,398.03 

On  disposal  works,  $379,088.00  @  5-10  of  1  0 
additional  .  1,895.44 


-  44,988.09 

$165,748.57 

Cost  of  pumping: 

Per  day: 

Chief  engineer . $3.00 

Assistants,  3  @  $2.50 .  7.50 

Firemen,  4  @  $1.75 .  7.00 

Helpers,  2  @  $1.50 .  3.00 

- $20.50 

Oil  and  waste .  2.00 

Coal,  5  net  tons,  @  $3.00 .  15.00 

$37.50 

10#  .  3.75 


$41.25 


365  days  @  $41.25 . 

Maintenance  of  interceptors  . 

Maintenance  of  disposal  works,  providing  for  333,000 

people,  @35  cts . 

Superintendent  . 

Total  . 


15,056.25 

2,500.00 

116,550.00 

1,500.00 

$301,354.82 


b.  For  immediate  needs,  with  filtration  at  Glen  Burnie. 


Interest  on  first  cost,  $5,741,007.00  @  40 . $229,640.28 

Depreciation  and  renewals: 

On  whole  cost,  $5,741,007.00  @10 . $57,410.07 

Carried  forward . $57,410.07  $229,640.28 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


217 


Brought  forward . $57, 410.07  $229,640.28 

On  discharge  mains  and  tunnel,  $2,257,130.00 

@  1$  additional .  22,571.30 

On  pumping  machinery,  $383,000.00  @  2^ 

additional  .  7,6G0.00 

On  boilers,  $32,000.00  @  4^  additional .  1,280.00 

On  siphons,  $139,803.00  @  1^  additional .  1,398.03 

- 90,319.40 


Cost  of  pumping: 

Per  day: 

Chief  engineer . $3.00 

Assistants,  3  @  $2.50 .  7.50 

Firemen,  4  @  $1.75 .  7.00 

Helpers,  2  @  $1.50 .  3.00 

- $20.50 

Oil  and  waste .  2.00 

Coal,  17  net  tons  @  $3.00 .  51.00 

$73.50 

10£  .  7.35 

$80.85 

365  days  @  $80.85  .  29,510.25 

Maintenance  of  interceptors .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  filtration  fields  and  discharge  mains ....  53,250.00 

Superintendent  .  1,500.00 


Deductions :  $406,719.93 

Sale  of  crops  is  assumed  to  offset  taxes  and  to  repay : 

Interest  on  cost  of  filtration  fields,  $94,200.00 

@  4^ . . .  $3,768.00 

Insurance  on  buildings  and  tools,  $40,000.00 

@  i  of  1£ .  200.00 

-  3,968.00 

Total  . $402,751.93 


c.  For  one  million  persons. 

Interest  on  first  cost,  $12,171,803.00  @4^ . $486,872.12 

Depreciation  and  renewals: 

On  whole  cost,  $12,171,803.00  @  l<f, . $121,718.03 

Carried  forward . $121,718.03  $486,872.12 


218 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRxVTNAGE 


Brought  forward . $121,718.03  $486,872.12 

Discharge  mains  and  tunnels,  $5,855,356.00 

@  1#  additional  .  58,553.56 

On  pumping  machinery,  $758,000.00  @  2# 

additional  . . 

On  hoilers,  $80,000.00  @  4#  additional 
Siphons,  $139,803.00  @  1#  additional. 


Cost  of  pumping: 

Per  day: 

Chief  engineer . $  3.00 

Assistants,  7  @  $2.50 .  17.50 

Firemen,  10  @  $1.75 .  17.50 

Helpers,  4  @  $1.50 .  6.00 

- $  44.00 

Oil  and  waste .  4.00 

Coal,  58  net  tons,  @  $3.00 .  174.00 

$222.00 

10#  .  22.00 

$244.00 

365  days  @  $244.00 .  89,060.00 

Maintenance  of  interceptors .  2,500.00 

Maintenance  of  filtration  fields  and  discharge  mains, 

300  men  @  $470.00 . $141,000.00 

3  men  @  650.00 .  1,950.00 

-  142,950.00 

Superintendents,  2  @  $1,500.00  .  3,000.00 


15,160.00 

3,200.00 

1,398.03 

-  200,029.62 


$924,411.74 

Deductions : 

Sale  of  crops  is  assumed  to  offset  taxes  and  to  repay: 

Interest  on  cost  of  filtration  fields,  $269,200.00 

at  4# .  $10,768.00 

Insurance  on  buildings  and  tools,  $120,000.00 

@  i  of  1# .  600.00 

-  11,368.00 


Total 


$913,043.74 


FOR  THE  Oil'  Y  OF  BALTIMORE 


219 


Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 

Plate 


APPENDIX  Y. 

LIST  OF  PLANS  ACCOMPANYING  REPORT. 

A:  Map  showing  Sewerage  Districts,  Intercepting  Sewers, 
and  Main  District  Sewers,  for  Dilution  Project. 

R:  Map  showing  location  of  Main  Outfall  Sewer;  also  loca¬ 
tion  of  Precipitation  Tanks. 

C:  Profiles  and  Sections  of  Outfall  Sewer,  also  Plan,  Profile 
and  Section  of  Siphon  under  Bear  Creek. 

I):  Plan  of  Settling  Basin,  Gate  House  and  Outfall. 

E:  Plan  of  Precipitation  Tanks. 

F:  Plan  of  Pumping  Station  for  Dilution  Project. 

G:  Map  showing  Sewerage  Districts,  Intercepting  Sewers, 
and  Main  District  Sewers,  for  Filtration  Project. 

H:  Map  showing  Filtration  Fields  at  Glen  Burnie. 

I:  Plan  and  Profile  of  Discharge  Mains;  also  Sections  of 
Tunnel  and  River  Crossing. 

J :  Sections  of  Intercepting  Sewers  and  Siphons. 

K:  Profile  of  Intercepting  Sewers. 

L:  Plan  of  Pumping  Station  for  Filtration  Project. 

M:  General  Map,  showing  Outlines  of  Filtration  Project. 

N :  Rainfall  Diagram. 

O:  Method  of  Construction  of  Filtration  Beds. 


APPENDIX  D 


REPORT  OF  GENERAL  WM.  P.  CRAIGHILL 


APPENDIX  D. 


Baltimore,  July  20,  1S97. 

To  the  Sewerage  Commission  of  the  City  of  Baltimore, 

Gentlemen: — In  accordance  with,  your  invitation  of  April  17th, 
I  have  had  under  careful  consideration  certain  questions,  suggested 
by  you,  relative  to  the  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  by  its 
discharge  into  the  waters  of  Chesapeake  Bay. 

That  some  proper  and  sufficient  method  of  sewage-disposal  has 
long  been  a  matter  of  urgent  need  for  such  a  great  and  growing 
city  as  Baltimore  will  be  readily  admitted  by  every  thinking  man 
who  is  acquainted  with  existing  conditions  which  are  becoming- 
more  pressing  every  day.  These  conditions  have  been  fully  dis¬ 
cussed  by  others,  and  I  refrain  from  saying  anything  in  reference 
to  them. 

I  have  had  the  opportunity,  through  your  courtesy,  of  examining 
the  elaborate  report  made  to  your  Commission  by  Messrs.  Rudolph 
Hering  and  Samuel  M.  Gray  under  date  of  November,  1896.  Balti¬ 
more  is  fortunate  in  having  had  the  services  of  such  experts  on  the 
treatment  of  sewage-disposal  and  in  being  able  to  take  advantage 
of  the  experience  gained  in  past  years  in  many  other  cities  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe  in  that  matter. 

Much  valuable  information  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  able  report 
of  August,  1881,  made  by  one  of  your  own  citizens,  Mr.  Chas.  H. 
Latrobe.  His  conclusion  then  was  that  the  “  outfall  main  ”  or 
conduit  should  be  carried  to  the  open  water  of  the  bay. 

Hering  and  Gray  remark  that  “  there  are  several  methods, 
according  to  which,  sewage  can  be  safely  and  properly  disposed  of ; 
namely,  by  a  dilution  in  large  bodies  of  water,  by  precipitation  and 
separation  from  the  sewage  of  a  large  portion  of  the  organic 
matter,  and  by  filtration  of  the  sewage  through  porous  soil.”  The 
applicability  of  all  these  methods,  Dilution,  Precipitation  and  Fil¬ 
tration,  to  the  case  of  the  City  of  Baltimore,  is  very  carefully  and 
fully  discussed  by  these  gentlemen,  and  in  comparing  they  specify 
them  as  “  the  discharge  of  crude  sewage  into  the  deep  waters  of  the 


224 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


Chesapeake  Bay,  the  discharge  of  clarified  sewage  into  the  Patapsco 
River  and  eventually  into  Chesapeake  Bay  near  the  shore,  and  the 
purification  by  filtration  in  Anne  Arundel  county.”  The  whole 
subject  is  considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  existing  conditions 
and  what  may  reasonably  be  expected  when  Baltimore  will  have  a 
population  of  a  million  of  people. 

After  presenting  in  detail  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of 
the  three  methods,  Dilution,  Precipitation  and  Filtration,  with  esti¬ 
mates  of  cost,  these  gentlemen  strongly  advocate  a  disposal  of  the 
sewage  by  Filtration  in  Anne  Arundel  county  at  a  location  where 
the  natural  conditions  are  highly  favorable  for  the  application  of 
that  method. 


The  summarv  of  estimates  of  cost 

t / 

by  Hering  and  Gray  is  as  follows: 

of  the  three 

methods  given 

Project. 

1.  Dilution. 

~  Maintenance, 

Construction,  .  ,  ,  ,  ’ 

...  ,  ’  interest  and  renew- 

total  cost.  . 

als  per  annum. 

a.  For  immediate  needs . 

$3,880,167 

1213,700 

b.  For  one  million  persons . 

5,129,167 

290,460 

2.  Precipitation. 

a.  For  immediate  needs . 

2,962,000 

284,400 

b.  For  one  million  persons . 

5,503,000 

665,000 

3.  Filtration. 

For  immediate  needs  with 

a.  Temporary  precipitation  . . . . 

3,019,012 

301,355 

b.  Filtration  at  Glen  Burnie . .  . 

5,741,007 

402,752 

c.  For  one  million  persons . 

12,171,803 

913,044 

The  experts  state  that  “  the  final  disposal  of  the  sewage  required 
the  consideration  of  three  methods,  which  are  all  applicable  and 
according  to  any  of  which  the  sewage  can  be  disposed  of  without 
offense.” 

In  view  of  the  fact  here  stated,  which  may  be  accepted  on  such 
high  authority,  a  question  for  those  who  will  pay  for  the  sewage- 
disposal  very  naturally  arises;  if  the  method  of  Dilution  can  be 
used  satisfactorily  and  without  offense  by  Baltimore  at  a  cost  less 
than  half  that  of  Filtration,  why  should  not  that  method  be 
adopted? 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


225 


The  experts  say,  that  “  to  dispose  of  sewage  by  dilution  means 
to  discharge  it  into  running  water  in  a  suitable  proportion  so 
that  no  putrefaction  will  take  place,  and  that  the  oxygen  contained 
in  the  water  will  gradually  decompose  the  organic  matter  of  the 
sewage  and  convert  it  into  harmless  compounds.  When  sewage 
is  thus  diluted  it  gives  no  offense.”  This  method  has  been  fully 
examined  by  your  experts,  as  appears  from  the  following  state¬ 
ments  in  their  report:  “ In  order  to  show  the  probable  effect  of 
discharging  sewage  into  the  Patapsco  River  at  different  points 
under  the  least  favorable  conditions,  the  necessarv  calculations  were 
made.  These  conditions  occur  when  the  dry  weather  flow  enters 
the  river  from  its  drainage  area  and  therefore  contributes  the 
least  amount  of  water  to  dilute  the  sewage.”  And  they  state 
further,  as  follows :  “  Could  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  be  discharged 
into  the  current  of  the  waters  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  it  is  safe 
to  assume  from  what  was  said  above  that,  at  the  lowest  figure 
applied  to  non-tidal  streams,  the  sewage  of  about  two  and  a 
quarter  million  people  might  thus  be  disposed  of  at  the  most  un¬ 
favorable  time.”  They  say  also,  “a  disposal  of  the  sewage  of 
Baltimore  by  dilution  therefore  would  mean  nothing  less  than 
the  building  of  a  sewer  to  near  North  Point  and  of  discharging  its 
contents  into  the  current  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  No  point  nearer 
the  city,  and  no  smaller  body  of  water,  such  as  Back  River,  would 
prevent  dissatisfaction.”  In  their  comparison  of  the  several 
methods  of  sewage-disposal,  Hering  and  Cray  say:  “When  we 
consider  that  a  discharge  of  crude  sewage  into  Chesapeake  Bay  does 
not  at  once  effectually  dispose  of  it,  but  allows  it  to  oscillate  with 
the  tides  in  the  navigable  waters  and  over  oyster  beds  before  it  is 
thoroughly  dispersed  *  *  *  ” 

In  view  of  the  objections  just  given  to  the  disposal  of  the  sewage 
through  an  outfall  near  North  Point,  it  seemed  expedient  to  your 
Commission  to  give  further  and  very  careful  consideration  to  them 
before  submitting  a  recommendation  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council 
of  the  city.  Accordingly  it  was  decided  to  make  additional  obser¬ 
vations  of  the  direction  of  the  currents  at  all  stages  of  the  tide  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  point  indicated  by  Hering  and  Cray  for  the 
mouth  of  the  outfall  sewer. 

Fortunately  for  the  object  in  view  a  re-survey  of  the  Chesapeake 
Bay  was  about  to  be  undertaken  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Superintendent  of  the  U.  S.  Coast  and  Ceodetic  Survey,  a  part  of 
the  work  consisting  of  observations  of  the  directions  and  velocities 


226 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


of  the  currents  near  North  Point  and  elsewhere  in  the  adjacent 
parts  of  the  Bay.  The  Superintendent  of  the  Coast  Survey  very 
courteously  agreed  that  all  results  of  this  special  kind  which  could 
he  useful  in  the  line  of  investigation  of  the  Sewerage  Commission 
could  he  at  once  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Commission.  Lieut. 
Tillman,  U.  S.  Navy,  the  officer  in  charge,  has  evinced  a  great 
interest  in  the  matter,  and  his  observations  and  results  have  heen 
of  great  value.  They  were  all  made  from  a  point  about  two  and 
a  quarter  miles  northeast  of  North  Point  and  about  one  mile  from 
the  shore. 

A  study  of  the  observations  by  Lieut.  Tillman  led  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that,  if  the  outfall  were  at  the  point  indicated  off  North 
Point,  there  would  be  danger  at  certain  stages  of  the  tide  of  a 
movement  of  some  of  the  sewage  towards  Sparrow’s  Point  and 
the  shores  near  North  Point.  And  here  it  may  be  said,  that  even 
in  that  event,  the  portion  of  the  discharged  sewage  thus  lingering 
would  probably  have  been  long  enough  in  the  water  of  the  Bay  to 
be  thoroughly  diluted  and  made  inoffensive. 

It  was  decided,  however,  from  abundant  caution,  to  consider 
other  points  for  the  outlet,  some  distance  to  the  east  and  north  of 
North  Point,  and  a  special  party  was  organized  to  make  additional 
current  observations  under  the  immediate  direction  of  Mr.  Kennedv, 
acting  under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  Allen,  Principal  Assistant  Engi¬ 
neer  of  the  Commission.  Accordingly,  a  large  number  of  floats 
were  set  adrift  at  all  stages  of  the  tide  from  points  east  of  the 
Rear  Light  of  the  ship-channel  and  approximately  0.92,  1.42,  1.92, 
2.42,  2.92,  and  3.42  miles  from  the  same. 

There  was  a  tendency  also  in  some  of  the  Kennedy  floats  to 
drift  at  times  towards  and  hang  around  the  western  shore  near 
and  north  of  North  Point,  when  the  floats  started  from  points  less 
than  two  miles  from  the  shore,  as  there  is  a  manifest  eddy  which 
sweeps  them  in  that  direction  on  the  flood  tide,  but  this  tendency 
is  less  as  the  point  of  setting  the  float  loose  is  farther  from  the 
shore;  moreover,  as  remarked  before,  during  the  observed  intervals 
elapsing  after  the  times  of  starting  such  floats  and  their  approach 
to  the  shore,  there  would  be  ample  opportunity  for  the  dilution 
of  any  sewage  taking  the  same  course  by  admixture  with  the  large 
volume  of  water  with  which  it  would  be  in  contact  in  its  move¬ 
ments  from  the  outlet.  The  conditions  at  and  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Patapsco  River  are  far  different  from  those  under  the  eyes  of  the 
citizens  of  Baltimore  in  the  Basin  in  the  city,  and  at  Spring  Garden, 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


227 


where  one  of  the  largest  sewers  empties.  There  is  no  fresh  water 
entering  the  upper  part  of  the  Basin  except  what  flows  from  the 
surface  of  the  streets  during  rains,  and  that  is  much  polluted  by 
what  it  gathers  on  its  way.  Spring  Garden  is  not  in  a  much  better 
condition.  At  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco  there  is  not  only  the 
vertical  oscillation  due  to  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  tides,  but  there 
is  the  constant  horizontal  movement  due  to  the  currents  generated 
by  the  tides  and  the  great  outpour  of  fresh  water  from  the  Susque¬ 
hanna  and  other  rivers,  so  that  sewage  discharged  into  the  Bay 
two  miles  from  the  shore  commences  to  be  diluted  at  once,  and 
becomes  more  and  more  so  in  an  increasing  ratio  the  longer  it  is 
out  of  the  sewer  and  the  further  it  goes  from  its  mouth,  until  finally, 
after  passing  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco  in  its  movement  down  the 
Bay,  or  even  sooner,  its  offensiveness  will  have  entirely  disappeared. 

If  sewage  were  discharged  only  during  ebb  tide,  the  tendency 
to  hang  around  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco  would  be  much  less,  and 
it  might  for  that  reason  be  found  expedient  to  arrange  basins  on 
shore  to  receive  and  hold  the  sewage  during  the  period  of  flood 
tide  and  discharge  it  only  upon  the  ebb,  but  I  do  not  believe  that 
will  be  ever  necessary.  A  favorable  circumstance  in  this  connec¬ 
tion  is  found  in  the  fact  that  about  one-half  of  the  sewage  of  a 
city  is  discharged  in  eight  hours,  whereas  the  ebb  tide  is  flowing 
out  at  least  twelve  of  the  twenty -four. 

It  is  understood  that  your  Commission  proposes  to  discuss  the 
possible  effect  upon  the  oyster  beds  in  the  portion  of  the  Bay 
where  sewage  might  be  found  in  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Dilution  plan.  I  may,  however,  remark  that  in  my  opinion  that 
question  is  not  a  serious  one,  as  few,  if  any,  valuable  beds  of 
oysters  would  be  injured  by  the  diluted  sewage  under  any  circum¬ 
stances,  and  there  would  be  no  great  hardship  even  if,  to  a 
moderate  extent,  there  should  be  such  an  injury,  inasmuch  as  in  any 
case  of  a  work  of  vast  benefit  and  importance  to  a  great  community, 
like  the  population  of  one  of  the  largest  cities  of  our  country,  there 
is  always  more  or  less  injury  caused  to  individuals  or  to  a  small 
part  of  that  community.  It  would  be  easy  for  the  City  of  Baltimore 
to  secure  for  itself  from  the  Legislature  of  the  State  complete 
control  of  any  beds  of  oysters  at  all  endangered  by  its  sewage  and 
thus  prevent  their  use. 

One  of  the  most  formidable  objections  in  many  cases  to  the 
dilution  method  of  disposing  of  sewage  is  the  danger  to  other 
communities  at  lower  points  of  the  stream  or  other  body  of  water 


228 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


used  for  the  purpose.  This  objection  does  not  exist  in  the  case 
under  consideration.  There  is  no  large,  or  even  a  small,  community 
to  be  disagreeably  affected  by  the  plan  now  proposed,  nor  is  such 
a  community  likely  ever  to  appear  within  a  long  distance  from  the 
point  recommended  for  the  outfall. 

The  small  volume  of  available  water  is  also  a  great  objection  to 
the  use  of  the  dilution  method  in  many  localities.  This  objection 
does  not  exist  in  the  present  case.  The  Bay  is  seven  miles  wide 
where  the  sewage  is  proposed  to  be  emptied  into  it.  The  depth 
varies  from  three  feet  at  the  Bear  Channel  Light  to  25  or  30  feet 
not  far  from  the  proposed  outfall.  The  great  river  Susquehanna 
is  constantly  pouring  an  immense  volume  of  fresh  water  into  the 
Bay  near  Havre  de  Grace,  all  of  which  must  flow  past  the  line  on 
which  the  outfall  of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  is  proposed  to  be 
located.  At  a  low  stage  of  the  river,  though  not  the  lowest,  there 
is  a  discharge  above  Port  Deposit  of  35,000  cubic  feet  a  second, 
which  in  24  hours  would  amount  to  more  than  3,000  millions  of 
cubic  feet.  There  are  only  about  20,000,000  cubic  feet  of  sewage 
in  24  hours  to  be  treated.  With  a  rise  of  three  feet  above  low 
water  the  discharge  at  the  same  place  was  100,000  cubic  feet  per 
second,  which  would  give  9,000  millions  of  cubic  feet  in  24  hours. 
A  freshet  of  17  feet  at  Port  Deposit  would  give  a  discharge  of 
900,000  cubic  feet  a  second,  which  would  be  75,000  millions  of 
cubic  feet  in  24  hours.  This  last,  however,  would  be  a  rare  and 
exceptional  case. 

The  figures  above  given  are  derived  from  a  U.  S.  survey  of 
1894  and  1895,  at  a  point  near  Port  Deposit  and  just  above  tidal 
influence.  They  are  somewhat  larger  than  those  used  by  Hering 
and  Gray,  derived  from  points  higher  up  the  river,  but  their  figures 
are  quite  large  enough  for  all  the  needs  of  the  present  case,  and 
it  is  always  best  in  discussions  like  this  to  view  the  situation  from 
the  most  unfavorable  standpoint. 

A  high  freshet  in  the  Susquehanna,  one  of  the  greatest  rivers 
on  the  Atlantic  coast,  is  an  annual  occurrence  and  would  produce 
an  enormous  cleansing  effect  on  the  portion  of  the  Bay  off  the 
mouth  of  the  Patapsco,  should  any  such  cleansing  be  needed.  The 
same  can  be  said  of  the  effect  of  the  scouring  caused  by  the  large 
masses  of  ice  which  pass  out  of  the  Susquehanna  every  winter. 

But  there  is  no  good  reason  to  expect  any  such  need  to  arise 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  sewage  which  would  flow  into  the 
Bay  would  be  freed  of  all  bodies  which  could  not  pass  through  a 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


film. fisify  f j f 

229 

hole  an  inch  on  a  side,  as  it  is  proposed  to  have  screens  to  catch  all 
such  matter  which  would  be  taken  out  and  burned.  All  matter 
capable  of  solution  would  be  comminuted  before  reaching  the 
point  of  outflow.  Thus,  what  would  reach  Chesapeake  Bay  would 
be  little  more  than  polluted  water,  not  very  offensive  in  any  way, 
even  to  the  nostrils  of  persons  near  at  hand.  This  is  the  actual 
experience  near  Boston  and  other  places  where  the  dilution  method 
properly  arranged  is  applied  with  success. 

To  the  outflow  from  the  Susquehanna  above  Port  Deposit  is 
also  to  be  added,  as  available  for  the  dilution  of  the  sewage  from 
Baltimore,  the  water  from  Principio,  Northeast,  Elk  and  Sassafras 
Rivers  from  the  eastern  shore  north  of  the  Patapsco,  and  from 
the  Bush,  Gunpowder  and  Back  Rivers  on  the  west  shore.  The 
water  from  the  watersheds  of  the  Patapsco  and  its  tributaries 
should  also  be  added  to  the  volume  available  for  the  dilution  of 
the  sewage  of  Baltimore,  as  both  must  pass  together  down  the  Bay 
below  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco. 

It  is  well  here  to  call  attention  to  the  following  extract  from 
the  River  and  Harbor  Act  of  August  17th,  1894,  which  is  very 
stringent  in  its  prohibitions.  Section  6.  “  That  it  shall  not  be 

lawful  to  place,  discharge,  or  deposit,  by  any  process  or  in  any 
manner,  ballast,  refuse,  dirt,  ashes,  cinders,  mud,  sand,  dredgings, 
sludge,  acid,  or  any  other  matter  of  any  kind  other  than  that  flowing 
from  streets,  sewers,  and  passing  therefrom  in  a  liquid  state,  in  the 
waters  of  any  harbor  or  river  of  the  United  States,  for  the  improve¬ 
ment  of  which  money  has  been  appropriated  by  Congress,  elsewhere 
than  within  the  limits  defined  and  permitted  by  the  Secretary  of 
War;  any  and  every  such  act  is  made  a  misdemeanor,  and  every 
person  knowingly  engaged  in  or  who  shall  knowingly  aid,  abet, 
authorize,  or  instigate  a  violation  of  this  Section  shall,  upon  con¬ 
viction,  be  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both;  such  fine 
to  be  not  less  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  nor  more  than 
twenty-five  hundred  dollars,  and  the  imprisonment  to  be  not  less 
than  thirty  days  nor  more  than  one  year,  either  or  both  united,  as 
the  judge  before  whom  conviction  is  obtained  shall  decide,  one-half 
of  said  fine  to  be  paid  to  the  person  or  persons  giving  information 
which  shall  lead  to  the  conviction  of  this  misdemeanor.”  It  will  be 
observed  that  just  such  matter  as  is  to  be  treated  by  the  dilution 
method  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore  is  excepted  from 
the  operation  of  this  law. 

Some  thirty  years  ago  a  thorough  study  was  made  of  the  currents 


230 


REPORT  ON  SEWERAGE  AND  DRAINAGE 


in  the  Bay  north  and  south  of  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco  River 
when  the  subject  of  the  new  location  of  the  ship-channel  was  under 
consideration.  Experience  has  demonstrated  that  the  conclusions 
then  drawn  were  sound  and  correct.  Conditions  have  not  mate¬ 
rially  changed  so  far  as  the  currents  are  concerned.  These  currents 
are  due  to  three  causes :  the  outflow  of  fresh  water  from  the  Susque¬ 
hanna  and  Patapsco  and  their  tributaries  and  other  streams  empty¬ 
ing  into  the  Bay  south  of  Havre  de  Grace,  the  tides  and  the  winds. 
The  influence  of  the  tides  on  these  currents  is  much  less  in  the 
upper  part  of  Chesapeake  Bay  than  in  many  other  localities  where 
the  vertical  movement  is  very  much  greater.  The  influence  of  the 
wind  is  not  great,  except  in  storms  which  are  exceptional  and 
never  of  long  duration. 

A  point  of  the  first  importance  is  the  fact  beyond  question  that, 
however  the  winds  may  blow  and  the  tide  may  rise  and  fall,  the 
great  flow  of  fresh  water  from  the  Susquehanna,  Patapsco  and 
other  streams  never  ceases  and  is  always  in  the  main  downward 
and  outward  until  it  is  lost  in  the  ocean.  And  this  downward 
movement  is  reinforced  by  the  ebb  tide  during  at  least  12  of  every 
24  horns.  The  force  which  may  be  depended  upon  for  the  removal 
of  the  sewage  of  Baltimore,  if  poured  into  the  Bay  at  a  properly 
selected  point,  is  therefore  far  greater  than  that  which  would  tend 
to  hold  the  sewage  or  push  it  up-stream  for  a  short  time  under 
certain  conditions  of  tide  and  wind.  This  is  the  force  which  was 
relied  upon  for  the  maintenance  of  the  increased  depth  to  be  given 
in  the  new  ship-channel,  and  the  confidence  in  it  to  accomplish  the 
desired  result,  which  was  at  first  a  theory  based  upon  study  and 
observation,  has  been  justified  by  actual  results.  Existing  facts 
speak  for  themselves. 

The  volume  of  the  flow  of  the  Susquehanna  and  its  tributaries 
far  exceeds  that  of  the  Patapsco.  The  resultant  of  these  two 
forces  when  they  meet  near  the  mouth  of  the  Patapsco  is  necessarily 
near  the  western  shore,  where  the  present  channel  was  successfully 
located.  The  effect  of  this  greater  force  of  the  Susquehanna  flow, 
impinging  upon  the  flow  from  the  Patapsco,  is  to  check  the  latter 
to  a  certain  extent,  and  an  eddy  is  formed,  especially  during  the, 
flood  tide  and  when  the  wind  is  in  certain  directions,  and  thus  a 
movement  is  caused  like  a  reflex  current  which  sweeps  in  a  north¬ 
easterly  direction  along  the  western  shore  north  of  North  Point 
until  it  is  drawn  again  into  the  great  down  current  of  the  Susque¬ 
hanna  farther  eastward. 


FOR  THE  CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


231 


The  observations  of  Lient.  Tillman  near  North  Point  and  those 
of  Mr.  Kennedy  farther  northward  and  eastward,  have  emphasized 
the  fact  stated  above  in  a  most  pointed  way,  and  the  diagrams  of 
the  movements  of  the  floats  made  in  yonr  office  by  Mr.  Allen,  or 
under  his  supervision,  show  this  reflex  movement  very  graphically. 
They  also  show  that  if  the  point  of  discharge  of  the  sewage  be 
located  sufficiently  far  from  the  western  shore,  not  less  than  two 
miles,  and  sufficiently  far  north  of  North  Point,  it  will  be  carried 
out  into  the  main  current  from  the  Susquehanna  and  then  south¬ 
erly.  There  may  be  a  little  northerly  movement  in  the  southern 
course,  but  the  general  progress  is  southerly  or  toward  the  ocean. 

While  the  conclusions  from  the  observations  of  floats  this  year 
are  interesting  and  in  conformity  to  known  conditions  as  to  direc¬ 
tions  and  velocities  of  currents,  your  Commission  is  aware  that 
owing  to  bad  weather  and  other  untoward  circumstances,  they 
were  not  so  extensive  and  complete  as  is  desirable  before  a  final 
location  for  the  mouth  of  the  outfall  sewer. 

It  is  right  to  call  attention  here  to  the  fact  that  the  amount  of 
the  total  daily  sewage  of  Baltimore  which  is  put  on  a  very  liberal 
estimate  at  20,000,000  of  cubic  feet  is  only  1-150  of  the  ordinary 
daily  low-stage  outflow  of  the  Susquehanna  alone;  there  is  thus  an 
ample  supply  of  water  for  all  purposes  of  dilution  and  oxidation  of 
the  sewage. 

In  conclusion  I  have  therefore  to  state  that  after  a  long  obser¬ 
vation  and  study  of  the  currents  of  the  Bay  above  and  below  the 
mouth  of  the  Patapsco,  and  full  and  careful  consideration  of  all 
the  conditions  and  circumstances  of  the  present  case,  it  is  my 
decided  conviction  that  the  dilution  method  of  disposing  of  the 
sewage  of  Baltimore  may  be  adopted  with  entire  safety  and 
without  offense,  provided  the  outlet  of  the  sewer  into  the  Bay  be 
not  farther  south  than  a  line  eastward  of  the  rear  range  of  the  ship- 
channel  and  not  nearer  the  western  shore  than  two  miles ;  and  the 
dilution  method  should  be  adopted  as  being  far  more  economical, 
both  in  first  cost  and  in  maintenance,  than  the  method  of  filtration. 
To  determine  precisely  the  best  point  for  the  outlet  of  the  sewer 
into  the  Bay  there  should  be  additional  observations  made  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  detailed  surveys,  which  should  precede  the  defini¬ 
tive  location  of  the  system  before  placing  the  work  under  contract. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 


WM.  P.  CRAIGHILL. 


600,000 


500,000 


400,000 


900,000 


800,000 


700,000 


300,000 


Plate  I 


1 ,000,000 


Population. 


T 


Plate  I 


Baltimore  Sewerage  Commission. 
Diagram  showing  Population  of  Baltimore, 

from  Records  of  the  U.  S.  Census 
and  Baltimore  Police  Census*^! 

September  1897. 


Note.  Results  according  to  U.  S.  Census  shown  thus  o 

Results  based  upon  Police  Census  shown  thus  o  ~ 

Police  estimates  subsequent  to  1873  obtained  by  multiplying  voting  population 
by  the  factor  442.  The  factor  used  for  1870  and  1873  not  known 
The  21st  and  22nd  wards  were  annexed  in  1890. 


SEWERAGE  \ 


F.  H .  HAMB  LETON. 
COMMISSION  |  E.L .BARTLETT. 


Dates  leoo 


1,000,000 


900,000 


800,000 


700,000 


600,000 


500,000 


400,000 


300,000 


200,000 


100,000 


1810 


1820 


1830 


1840 


1850 


1860 


1870 


1880 


1890 


1900 


1910 


1920  1930 

THE  PR  I  EDENWA  LD  CC  PHOTO  LITH  BALTO 


Population 


JL 

JL 

’ 

1  «t,  • 
*  * 


iSih  m1 


ii  stem 


Plate  II 


■y.yaan 


MENDKS  OOHKX 
F.II.IIAM1W.KTON 
K.I..BAKTI.KTT. 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


i/Vc  ( Vc  I*t 


NOTE 

LETTERS  A, B, CANO  DREFERTOTHE  SEVERAL  LOCATIONS  OF  OUTLE  T 


FOR  THE  CORRESPONDING  PROJECT. 


~'7  r-.  l&'Km 

t?  ^ifawtlurnx 

■j  . 


fllleon 


,  ** 


7 

*3  4 


,  ✓ Jtobma  Pt 


•  :  !>®  ’'.-i"  „ 


tfloobrl 


Sll.i'U  it 


Mi  M 


ft  it.  Hcmjy 


iO  Cove 


I  A/a 


No.  2b 


•v hi  rt 


DriwxPt. 


y^lrpxich  Pt  p 


Bro< 


*o-4S 


REAR  UGHT 


SoJlers^Pi'.. 


*ishuio  Pt 
't  _  No.  2 


r£LLQW 


*  Ft. C:»  troll 

LIOHT  ,K  ,■  M 
niLu)  M 


it.jti/'#.  irif, 

V  i .  ’7*4 


&fuv/..'y  W/ 


[rt«JS  </• 


\\iJllUI.  J’t 


Nit-Zl 


■/north  ft, 

,010  • 


lights 


White  Rock 


Jfaslc  Pt, 


SEVEN  FOOT!  K  NO  LL*'LlGHT! 

jk,  -.fOGB(U.t 


t  tfhrrt 


1S1  3^  ^  fyNine  Ibot  A'n^/ 

,  **  '  Avo  /  3s 


BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE 


COMMISSI  ON 


NoH 

jrti  .  ^ 

it 


.VnvjM  Pt: 


D  TO  l/V  £  R  3 


jBodkin  Pt 


vo  r 


PROPOSED  LOCATIONS  OF  OUTFALL  SEWER 


Hiuitmfiti 


UPON 


18  97 


4 


**!*■*> 
^  3$Ar0.37'< 


No.l 


Zp'hr.i 


76°  3o' 2i 


THE  FfmCENWM.0  CO 


.I7XBNT0 


Plate  III 


IQ'"2' 


— iis — 


1 

. J - . 

&r.d.  00052 

11-4" 

Grade  00043 

— -T- 

If  l?C  Grade  OOOJ5 

i; 

HIGH  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 

OF 

BALTIMORE  MI). 

PROFILE  OF  INTERCEPTING  SEWERS 

FOR  THE 

CHESAPEAKE  BAY  DILUTION  PROJECT. 

JANUARY  1897. 


Hi 


Grardfc  00054 


w-  BtJOTALOU  STM 


_  _ .  urt/  t  fAi<  clt  r  jor  v  v T  a..  . 


STOCKHOLM 


LLKOCNHALL 


SfOfiTGOMCff  Y 

**»J  ST. 


^  II  S  w 


N53 


BA  LOCUS  TOH  ^CKT  LOMBAStt^S'  CAL  ^ 

ST  jjf  ,  *  "n-TT 

Ik1  I  t  Jr  : 

-  k'B  «k.  MS  *5  „ 

>  B 


—  to atc* 


Qv  I-  ^ 

,  ><  ’  k 

L  Jg  is  o  ^ 

*  ci  s>  % 

•'  \  ^  V  -si 

■I't)  Sj‘  ^  Vj  V3 


S  8  S3; 


$3g 

ii 


ft 


fH' 


artae  00074 


WESTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


ros  .. 

rat |  GLOVCK  AL  K' 


NONT- 
COVIfiS  GOMFHT 

ton  sr  sr 


EASTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


YORK  STREET  INTERCEPTOR 


V*»4 

3^  r\^ 

fs 

*  \ 

1 

5 

-  $  s 

1  I 

|  s 

li 

r7 

-  A 

-H- 

^S+ 1 

4^ 

y+" 

>Yot*.'  Tl>r  /nterrcptnrs  arc  designed  fhr  a  velocity  of  4  tret 
per  .second  rttnmnff  ho'f  fUJt.  e.xcefitiny  the  fbliorr 
'Ait/,  trilich.  hurr  'hem  n'udij'erf  to  rra-cJ  local 
front i?i>mn  Hiffh  Ki^vl  Interceptor  7 /erf  in.  diet- 

■rtt  -trr  .  K  a. stern  ItOT  Is- ret  Int-rrrpTor  runt  «V 
1  'n rtf! i nr  .sV  an  ft  the  York  St  and.  LocukT  forint 
frr  fm-rptons. 


SCALES 
HORIZONTAL  .  9  2»0 


590  750 


LOCUST  POINT  INTERCEPTOR 


10,00  ft. 

VERTICAL  :  9  *f>  ^0  AO  4 p  5p  FJ. 

DATUM  MEAN  LOW  TIDE  AT  BALTIMORE. 
ELEVATIONS  OF  SEWERS  REFER  TO  CENTER  LINE 

A^cvn". 

Jf*™’-  '*9/- 


l/rtnrn  t*j  K..  t  VarC.repnr 


ii  •!...!  < i'  .*/ 


I 


it 


..... 


Mi" -  -  --  - 1 — *-  -  '•  ■"  — « — * 


Plate  IV 


Baltimore  Sewerage  Commission 


C  O  ST  OF  CONSTRUCTION 


COLLE  CTION 


A-  D/LUTJOA/ 


D  I  S  PO  SA  L 


/  MKXDKS  COHEN. 
SEWERAGE-  ’  p;  h.HAMBLETON. 

commission  )  eI.e. Bartlett. 


4— 


c  -  f/l  ~r ra  r/o/v 


cm 


B  -  PR  EC/P/  TA  T/O/V 


D  -  F  /  LTRAT/O/V  W/TH  TEMPORARY  PPEC/P/TAT/O/V 


TOTAL  ANNUAL  EXPENSE  INCLUDING  I  N  T  ERE  ST  Be  SINKING  FUND 


/ 


nia  ,.ti  //. 


THE  FR IEDEWWA LD  CO-  PHOTO  LITH  BALi  0 


Plate  V 


SEWEF 

COMMII 


DISPOSAL 

ACRES 


20  ,000 


15,000 


- 2.  MILL  I  CM 


.10,000 


- I  m  i lli  or 


_ 5.000 


8 

! 

& 

o 

T 


AR  EA 


n 


N 

•s. 

k 

5 

5 

% 

o 


P 


PlateV 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CC.  PHOTO  U TH  BAl.TO 


Plate  VI 


Baltimore  Sewerage  Commission 


COST  OF  CONSTRUCTION 


^  $12,000,000 
111 
b 

li) 

> 


W 

J 

< 

W 

0 

Q. 

0) 

D 


$  8,000,000 


$  4,000,00  0 


5 

u 

(-  $  4,000,000 

to 

> 

10 


0  $  8,000,000 
_ 

u 

til 
J 


w 

a> 

co 


CO 

oc 

< 

a. 


-I  $12,000,000  j$ 

0  - * 

0  * 

$16,OOO,00O  & 

-  —  k 


Z 

J 

DC 

LJ 

00 


z 

o 

h 

CO 

O 

OQ 


§ 


k 

VJ 

3 

* 

k 

I 

s 

k 


li 
0 c 
o 
I 

h 

< 

CD 


* 

<3 

•  >. 
k 

v 

k 
VJ 

Or 

J 

& 

*z 

k 

<3 


5 

k 

>3 

k 

<9 


I 


* 

k 

% 

v> 

V 

k 

Wj 

0: 

i 

t 


§ 

k 

>s 

a 

? 

| 

n1 

k 


ui 

QC 

O 

I 

5 

<c 

CD 


kj  '/ 

y/. 

£  / 

32 


* 

SI 

l 

< 

ft 

k 

T 


) 


1 

* 

£ 

k 

=b 

o 

(J 

•u 

* 

* 

I 


u 

Z 

1° 

<CQ 

l-J 

QbJ 

vi4- 


l 


o 

or 

k 


ANNUAL  COST  OF  MAINTENANCE 


I 

111 

h 

w 

> 

w 

J 

< 

w 

0 

Q. 

(0 

Q 


I 

Li! 

h 

(0 

> 

w 

z 

0 

h 

0 

u 

j 

j 

o 

o 


$  8  00,000 


$  600,000 


$4 -00,000 


$  2  0  0.  000 


to 

0) 

00 


$  2  0 0,0  00 


QC  ^  DC  I 

<  IJ  (O 

0-  OP  |lO 


\x 

M 

/  - 
/  v> 
/  0- 

'/ * 


<T> 

00 

i  z 

_  o 

J  _t“ 
0) 

0 

CD 


I 

§ 

$ 

k 

1 


§ 

k 

k) 

kl 

■3 

O 

J 

X: 

o 

k 

4 


y\ 


% 

IP 

\k 


p 

o 


A 

k 

* 

o 

k 

c 

N 

\ 

k 


LJ 

DC 

O 

i 

CD 


P-JJU 

3|  I"?  * 


LI 

z 

QC 

D 

O 

CD 

_1 

LJ 

z 


$400,000 

JVobe- .•—  Full  color  area*?  indicate  existing 
works  or,jforiBa!btrn.ore-!fir3t-  insta.lia2i.OTi, 
Outline,  areas  indicate  projected 


extensions 


„  (  MENDES  COHEN. 

SEWERAGE  !  F.H.HAMBLETON. 

COMMISSION  j  E.L. BARTLETT. 


/LCtlAA* 

f  /•  ‘*9? 


THE  KRIEDENWALD  CO.  PHOTOUTH.  BALTO. 


'laeiMMOD  33AA3W3S  3f)  OM1  T_JA  8 


■  v  -\t»  iVu\  sV'.o'A. 
■iV'  i«r\  it*i« 


>*,irvi>  «wvs>AvV'N 

wt<»  sxt\«\»» 


A 


■a  :!H<o  ^  [<r/>iM 

St  VI’,  7  ■  I  •  j  /  i i  I  ,i 


HOAHSV/Hfe 


Plate  VP 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO  PHOTO-UTH  BALTO. 


Plate  VET 


Plate  YHI 


<frrtrr;\  Ft 


w!$fe.  ■ 

M  White  Oak. Ft. 


■$3mi 


Jlrifil'  Pi 


6i 

J  f’ck'Ft. 


9  ffiLwthoirt  Ip ! 
,.  ( ;„v-r^  R; 
34 


PpckrtDs  Pt. 


j  Robin's  Ft. 


Lnworl.Pt. 


POOte'S  I.  LtCHT 

-■FOB  BSLLl  ... 

„  ,»■/  7 

/Vo.  /  p- 


72.  bu.yt: 


Drum  Pti.  k. 
Ill  *V? 


i3Hu 


IJovd$ 


‘■[utnjtuy  rs 


°  Id  Ro  a  a 


*  Gir./.o',  <>. 


M'tffcC* 


fRONT 

!  F  06  St4.t)  .  , 


ja.¥. 


hj-d.S. 


TT 


White  Pock 

□S 


<Vo  /5\ 


A/S  LINE 


for  cmsFRim^ 


jitiek  r> . 


A>a 


knOuli-.cht:>. 

I  ^FOGSeLCJ 


SEVEN  FOO 


ihjirii. 


fyNine  Foot 
'■/«»./  3i 


B 

jSi  ran  lJ2, 


IL0.  TOWERS 

iioi/kin  PFA 


.'  Vo  2? 


4  sti.hu  if. 


4i 

4*  ‘o  .An2.f>  o  & 

*  »  SA. 

'?  ‘  \a2%Hoilk 


NOTE:  FLOAT  46  PICKED 

UP  NEA  H  PEA  Ft  UGH  T. 


MENDES  COHEN 
F.  H.HAMBLETON 
E.L.  BARTLETT. 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


THEFRUDtNWUD  CO  PHOTO  LITH  BAIJO 


BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE!  COMMISSION 
CHART  SHOWING 

TRACES  OF  ALL  FLOATS  SET  ADRIFT  FROM  A.B.C.ET, 

SO  FAR  AS  OBSERVED. 

BASED  UBOA/  CQ/IST  C/Y/h^F  136  OSC.SrG.S 


lJ  LJL_Y  I  89^ 


Scale 


o  Miles 


no  te- 

FLOATS  AGROUND  INDICATED  THUS _ X 

FLOATS  TAKEN  FROM  WATER »  »  ....  n 


7^x<^'  OvtA', 

ildLlt,  1*97 


/ 


Plate  IX 


BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 
CHART  SHOWING 

TRACES  OF  ALL  FLOATS  SET  ADRIFT  FROM  K, 

SO  FAR  AS  OBSERVED. 

BASED  UPQ/V  COAST  CP  APT  J36  U-  S.C.&?£,S- 

U  ULY  I  097 

o  J\fii  es  i 


NO  TE: 

FLOATS  AGROUND  INDI CATED  THUS _ X 

FLOATS  TAKEN  FROM  WATER »  »  _ O 


/<??/ 


>%  f:  r  ^  4 

*  s _ I_1 _ 

C's-7El  h  'pTSPcngic’sK. 
54 


n  sib. 

^  7 


thrtnpr  Ft. 

*  a 


3 

\  W  hite  Oak  Ft. 
7  © 

m7 

sfl. 


A.V»L» 


Y 


»;  » 
Lav's  Ft. 


.at. 


t<>: 


•'  BriarPt. 

Hi 

6  <i  Hi  wtluirn 
r.  a 


8 


■  i5 


hr.  I 


...aY'At  ..  »  * 
m  -  <*■#  *■  | 


Lower!, 


Lower!Fi?  c  , 

im  v 


64 

.  lFeil'  Ik. 


jrtrji 

.ii  4 


8 


?  |  |P 

Rieki-tr V  A.;. 


iPY 

i  Robin’s  Ft. 
”2  3  12 


fiiG 


Si¬ 


ll 


'■  *V  A 

OgT  ■,,-)£  ,  %  /Sk  '--t4 

I  FY'wYht* 

Y-YYi 


8  8  |  J  0i 

IT 

L  j^/yY 

r  J  /  13 

i4  '  - 


n 


10 


( 


€v 


stl.bu^M 

u 


l4  : 


9  cV 

> 

0  /*  Ui 

^  * 

V  fL  ”>  ...  -  -5 
*?  Y  P 

Awgr~p^ 


i  I# 

-  1 7  A?  i  ■  i  i-  ^ 


-T- 


r  13 


aof< 


.A 


A  V  - 


■j~FF  '  ?s& 

s  YaY-'  :'L. 


if 


iSSS 

LWiTVv'' 

.  iiraSSP31 

,  --i-,  ,  /Uit^ 

r  -  \A-t  jA  <• 


fen  a#. 


jF» 


mtMm~  ^  w  : 

. .  . . . . . 

1  (M  .  4 \ 

eoidFoAd 

j|t2 


j3 


•r^Y  S':1 

>7  !|  i/Y 


i  4 


i4 ; 


”'A.  •Y,*'  la? 

.  '-'L  i\  T.  ,vff. 

3i  ^Vo4**** 

v  w.x^. 


m 

M  l 
r.i*.  0^ 


**  H5'  ’ 
\  'I  > 


ORTH  PT. 


is  li 


m  ■ 

t 


V  1/  T"  V7 

/mX  / 

T  /  ;  ./  4'' 
Y  Y.i« 


,  u 

?.«  effete 

3  rY  3 


!  u 


«> 


i  : 

»!  .,<**>'  ' 

m  . 

v  -s  w: 


ifi 


>  §  t'.  j4  "  \fi 

«•-.  '---.  ’  .  \  ..  . 


Y^L 

•  ■' '  ^v2'  Y  - 

YY7  -Yc 

A/t/.  ..  j 

,  ■  ii-,  ' ! 


i4 


N* 


i4 


l3 


13 


3i 


i3 


POOLES  I.  LIGHT 

'>08  8SLL )  o 

♦  /  .  7 

*o./f  1;  0 


/  ^°:2  3 
-•  io 


i5 


1  if  f>  t 

1m  / 


17! 


13 


14 


Gt 


10. 


1'  10 

,  8 

97 

.'7i  A4, 


-Ii 
'  « 

;n  H 


YV^: 

:W5.  i>; 


ifi 


-Vo./  .y 


iB 


6c 


i» 


in 


16 


:  wtf.  3 


So  sfi 


4i 


4i 


*il  M. 


17 


31 


17 


4i 


17 


it. 


;T  »i  13  3iij. 


* 


3i 


1J'!"  l3 


*4 

7  “  ,  T 


m 


3i 


-:ia 


,17  '’»  Y«ia 


34  :  -  & 
F  /mt.  ;  . 

; .  .0!Y  “  w 


JO 


16 


«  lfl 


34 


rfii&Si 


16 


3  5  tfi ;i 


7  \. 

w  Vt  r  // 

'R  »  \  .15 


ai 


3.8 


>  . 

i(i  iG  -  3j  o 

*T>  •  r  -- .  “•-,  -ax*  . 

+?*  34  18  3i  ">  ""-^Y 

4/0-5  17  34  34  C  '* 

A  18 


m  in  \  15  ( // 


.  tj.  White  Rock 

/£•  i  F> 


,s7Yj/ 

jt>  k>  a 

11  ,  s2§%»,'o.:'i>.Y ; .  ■ 


W  f  .1  E  °  .17  '  .  -,  34 

it  i  ‘7  .Y.34. 

■  ’  -■  n  6  FAtPrUT 


:u  *  >7 

:•  v\Y  ^ 

17  7.  3i  j».  “*  ^ 


IS 


V  w 


ID 


18 

3t 

34 

3i 

sft.Jl. 

18  y 

»  5o 

** 

4t 

3  Ll 

34 


-'4i 


13 


It  .  lu  d. 


Q 
9  - 


3? 


4i 


3t 


'-¥»  i 


’  /  i 

4* 


ID 

A’'. 


44 


sft.M. 


i5 


T7- 


A07? 


17 


i« 


'f 


31 K  s f'L  I  Y  ,,wvY ffy,  \  1  34 

FLOMrS  A  FT &#?!,,  PA&SWq  VJ^  sd^UT^  Q 

L-fe'^TiYL  WWW  tti  Tw 


17 


34  ] 


.  ‘  A ‘8  T'  1 

it-Yw  , 

\,Y-Yt  ,.  F-R- 

02:  -* 


‘■•'OA  ''  ft 


3i 


^  *'!&  -i\  ^  ”  '%0i^ 


W015i  Jly*3*«f  3‘ 
I  «|# 

SEVEN  FQ/p-f  8 N 0 LLLlCWTP.  i  ‘7  II  3*  =» 

ii  “*»  ^OG«%  i.To  i  Li 

w°'-7.  Ill  35 

.-  *  :vY-t  30 


,  .  .  jsoa^ 

:...  .'4'*--  .'  '  ';  T  o 

Tt;,-..  ’ja’ 


54 


34 


«6 


34 


18- 


3l 


4t 


54 


4i 


34 


sft.  M. 


Y  b>T  a 

Y'  9 


7»  4t| 

..r. v  • :-  v.v< v  .  t  -p  t;^,> 

’ 


/  '  •  '/A/ 


3t 


Os  sfy'M. 


7^ 

^44 


•a 

7y/S  Z-ZA^E* 


64 


V-.y  FFFSik  ... .  ,. 

T#w:.  _ 
’■*e  j 


®?Af> 


41 


6 


jL 


- 


54 


/  7L 


34 


sft. 


Y.#£rY  ? 

:;tYs- 

13 


i4 


34  34 

a  34 

3? 

ii 

YT-AO  I  4lu  ^Y4  ^ -j;-.-  • 

\-UF  ..i.  10  ., 

\^\-Z-  I  3*  u 

\r 


3t- 


34 


Yl  3.  34  ^  3j 

15*^6%  #'  i«3^  3L4  $v£iFootJLg 

>  1 L  3i  17  2d"  ^  4  ^T.*',at 


34  iR 

*»  .  #  ,  34-^,  , 

ift  34  34 -a  34  34  34- 


s  I  ‘ 

i  >-  i\j  YiiYiElU  1« 

I-  9  17  34  L  Y  T„;  Y  ,15  , 

¥% rt  u  i  llS  Y  i’aY'  Y1  Ya 
pta  4  nTv;  "4*g.  34 

vrJk/U  Ffit  «  Yo5\.  I''  'I'3*  4  1334 

5~  Ii1'  \  Yfe  3<J 

..-  s.  '  ,.  81  L 

9 


34\ 


34 


34 


No.2 


44 


34 


3i 


hrd. 


34 


34 


fYY 


34 


ft?  4i  ,-■ 

x  3| 


3£ 


i4 


'  4  !  \^>J  . 

"  »  m'Y  L  ?  “ 

n  U  & 


Q-L  )© 


34 


64 


74 


64 


sft.M. 


m 


if 


17  !34  AYS  3 


'w 


At 


© 


64 


l4 


9 

‘..r.rrA.  r. 

"((;%}!  ■{.  I*?  *.  ^ 

« ,  r. 

Swan  Ft: 


itt 


*-V 


Hi 


r  v 

I  Ho. 22 


94 


•15: 


•  H  1 


1  '1  ,  .  .  _  . 

PIT  n  f- 

V  2  W)  «  A 

7  H  .10 

7  ,  W-9 

•2  T  >•} 

18 


44 


17 


i4 


^  4|  3i  4*  f 

1  ii  l 

H  q  g  3 

4  1  j  .sr 

34  iAni  i  3t  34 


34 


34  34 

A  ^  „  ,4( 

Y*#3i«# 


3| 


34 


16 


13 


34 


14 


i5 


Yl6 


n 


*  2  rv 

c  3*  ^  : 

16  -  ;  i.  •  s3i 


1$ 


A/t£ .  4 


34 


sft. 


3f  %  31 


T: 


•<7t  -  QJ. 

f  4  .  .  *3i  Y**6 

i;4i  3^ivuire^^ 

a,  ^>.'T|i  |Il  44  44  8  pfYY5  44 

■  3:  R  ;34  .  oX?  l*-rf  31 


34 


*►  4 


4  O4 

YR,  ,. 
34  34 


34 


34 


34  Pi  \$P%  **  *%3&*»'* 

34  3^J 


X*  ->4  '  ij 

34  Nft  4! 


34 


'  V/ 

\"w,  , 

.'74  1U 

oV 


54 


17 


17 


10 


94  «4 


j/?. 


64 


£4 


54 


44 


1/: 


54 


74 


64 


64 


10 


hot 


’/■ 


. . . 

Swan  I- 1  -a  .  ,  , 

/zn/.i-i 

t£;  ‘a-V 

YClA-.i  ■  ’  AT  : 


Yu 


4  sii.hu  J£ 


:  -.--IS  •  :.=. 

vs^isl ... ...  . 

16  { 


*4 


54 


hrd. 


9 


L%;  i*^»  34  , ;  ^  7 

*Y  -mApA*  34;8; 

fepTY  f  #  14  ;,4«/V>. 

-  11  ^5-3t  YlSSs* 

ali'uWH ^ _ *4iQ' 


iS 
4 


34 


3i 


34 


54 


/  SEWERAGE 


(  MENDS! S  COHEN.  Y 
F.H.HAMBLETON.  m '* 


4i 

76°  2  o'  21 


1  1  •  1  1  »  1  ti  imu  IJLj  .1 

|  COMMISSION  j  e.L. BARTLETT. 

>'  21"  \  F 


-fT' 

,  f 


THE  ERIEOENWALD  CO.  PHOTO  UTH  BALTO. 


MENDE  S  COHEN 
F.H.HAMBLETON. 
E.  I.  .BARTLETT. 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


SET  ADRIFT 
A'M-  Z  >  Hu. s  flrrEf?  L  ■  W 


172  3  00 

173  4  00 

/ 74  S 00 
/  73  5.  05 

/  76  6.  OO 

177  6  30 

/  7  S  7-00 
/  7 9  730 
/ 80  8  OO 

/ 8 /  8-30 

/ 82  9  OO 

/83  3. 30 

/84-  /OOO 

/as  /o- 3o 

/86  //OO 

/87  //SO 

/88  /2  OO 

/SO  /2  30 

/ 90  /  OO 

/9/  2-00 

/92  2.30 

/93  3  00 

/S4-  3  30 

/  95'  4--  oo 

/  96  SOO 

/97  S.30 

/ 98  600 

/9.9  6-30 

200  7-oo 

20/  7  30 

JVuir  sce-ri  cS'/e-r 


H-W 


\Vhite  Oak  tt. 


TOj/^kt 


BrioiPt. 


GraAlm 


IViIsoil 


fci!  3  '  6i 


9  Hasvtlwra 


4* 


3  Robins  Pt. 


.  BowifVS Jiru- 


hnrerl.Pt, 


POOuES  I.  LIGHT 
.'.roo  bcll'  ~ 


AIM. 


!  > 

ttJlfuhv  1. 


.ti.bii.iL- 


s/t.M 


HW. 


Axlwu. tU^A-C£t 


Drumkt. 


sti  M 


186z 

>‘  •2  ol  KM. 

\.m 

4  £7  r/*t. 

■  to.  . 


;:'ZiS-3 


REAR WGHT 


asjruP1?  «■ 


3 1 

s/UL 


>nn  tmi 

•AO- 


f  ft 


»'lA  rcl.S. 


l’'  | 


aggsr- 


'.NO. 2  6 


FRONT  LIGHTS 
(roo  bcll>  0.; 


\J1.21  A.M. 


H'httf  Rook 


zmP.ifr 


\ockt‘i.  »• 


&O200T ' 
■*)1M5  A 


ns 

//•■ A3. 


c  % 


SEVEN  Fi 


KNOLL  J-ltHTfE 
1  -;"QD  eti-Lj  _ 


sV ini  Foo  t  KnolJ 
?<Ro  J  3i 


Swan  Pt 


»L&  TOWER 3 

u  iodkin  Pfi i 


No  r 


«  3 

S  VtLll  J.[ 


8 

Hunting! 


sii.h „  XL 


CHL/at  ///vo  O/LUTCD  S  E  W>9  <S  £•  O/f  .JOT  /ZOOK'S 
ASS  OM/rvO,  MS/)  /V  DEPTH  02  20  FEET 


hrtl  5 


3SA-0  3?' 


6  sft  M 


Plate  X 


6  J/6/96 


NOTE:  On  May  21, 1897  there  occurred  a  Fall  for 


5/16(9  6 
9/19/96 


ffiSiffi 


storm 


Plate  XI 


Baltimore  Sewerage  Commission. 

Maximum  Rates  of  Rainfall 

occurring  in  Baltimore  and  Washington 
from  the  records  of  the  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau. 

August  1897, 

NOTE. — BALTIMORE  OBSERVATIONS  HAVE  BEEN  MADE 
WITH  SELF-REGISTERING  GAUGE  SINCE  NOV.  22,  1892,  ONLY. 

MAXIMUM  RATES  OBSERVED  IN  WASHINGTON  DURING 
THE  PAST  16  YEARS  BY  MEANS  OF  SELF-REGISTERING  GAUGE 

w 

SHOWN  THUS: . . 

TWO  INDEPENDENT  OBSERVATIONS  SHOWN  THUS.  02 

(  MENDES  COHEN.  //c^vU^ 

SEWERAGE  f.H.HAMBLETON. 

COMMISSION  1  e.L. BARTLETT.  4-,  r  *9 ? 


1  OM . 


20M 


30  M. 


40M. 


50M. 


1  hr. 


A, 

■ram 


msmnm  T 


5 


gT03UO««?  30 A 

t 


3HT  *03 


YAa  3>IA3<Ua3K0  VS  I 

OWIWOhC  9AM  , 

«fiaLW38  OV3TS^OH5fTVH  .  8TW ; 

a  ha 

8fl3¥:ia  T0IHT8H 


ve 


r&umAB  av-  'orrHs****  t,; 

■#  “  f- 

.HOI82IMMOD  30AA3W32  3fiOVnTJAQ  3HT  OT 

.de8LT13aM3V( 


Plate  A 


llilca  South 


NOTE 

'  INOlCATES  MIGM  LtVEL  INTERCEPTORS 

-  Lovly 

AREA  SEWERko  BV  GRAVITY 
"  PUMPING 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE! 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

DILUTION  IN  CHESAPEAKE  BAY 

map  showing 

SEWERAGE  DISTRICTS  ,  INTERCEPTING  SEWERS 

AND 

MAIN  DISTRICT  SEWERS 

Jointly  Presented 
b  y 

Rudolph  Her'ing  and  Samuel M.Gray 
■INS  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SCWERA6E  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


>.  QflVt-h— 


_  /  MENDES  COHEN. 

SEWERAGE  f.H.HAMBLETON. 

COMMISSION  )  e.L.BARTLETT. 

V 


i 


a  /South  _ 


£> 


PATAPSCo 


'f/h. 


A 


THE  FUltDlHWUO  CO.  PHOTO  UTH  8 ALTO 


ZMLLm.  sStfitth 


|  MENDES  COHEN. 


SEWERAGE  ,  f.H.HAMBLETON. 
COMMISSION  E.L. BARTLETT. 


Plate  B 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  the: 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


DILUTION  IN  CHESAPEAKE  BAY 

MAR 

SHOWING  LOCATION  OF  MAIN  OUTFALL  SEWER 

ALSO 

LOCATION  OF  CHEMICAL  PRECIPITATION  TANKS 
Jointly  Presented 

BY 

Rudolph  Herin J  and  Samuel  M.Grav 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

N0VEMBERJ896 


NOTE 

INDICATES  PROPOSED  ROUTE  FOR 
••  ALTERNATE  ROUTES  » 

Scale  =  36A00 

— i  l  1  - 


Dutfall  sewer 


T 


ntICtiEHWAlO  CO  f  HOTOUTH  BALTO 


>  2  Miles  East 


Plate  C 


SEWERAGE  (  MEVDES  COHEN. 

commission  j 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  the; 

C I T Y  O F  BALT IM O RE 

DILUTION  IN  CHESAPEAKE  BAY 

PROFILE  AND  SECTIONS 
or 

OUTFALL  SEWER 

ALSO 

PLAN.  PROFILE  AND  SECTION  OF  SIPHON  UNDER  BEAR  CREEK 

Jointly  Presented. 

BY 

Rudolph  Herjng  and  Samuel  M. Gray 
CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


3 

> 

£ 

r*. 

$ 

§ 

k 

.j 

fk 

5$ 

l> 

.V 

N. 

5 

£ 

k 

\ 

$ 

$ 

* 

4 

1^ 

QHEBAmAKE  &AY 

lu»'  r>D€- 


PROFILE  ON  LINE  OF  OUTFALL  SEWER 

4»0p0 


HORIZONTAL 


SCALE  OF 
o _  1000 


3 


VERTICAL  o  lo  20  30  40 


Plan 


Profile 

SIPHON  UNDER  BEAR  CREEK 


I90 


SCALE  OF  FEET 
290 


4*90 


T  t 


Enlarged  Plan 

or 

Gate  House  at  West  End  of  Siphon 
Scale  of  Feet 

9  5  ljO_ 20 -30 -+-0 


Section  at  Manhole 


Sewer  on  Cradle 


TT - ~ - 

Sewer  on  Platform 


Section  of  Siphon 


SECTIONS  OF  OUTFALL  SEWER 


Enlarged  Plan 

or 

Gate  House  at  East  End  of  Siphon 
Scale  of  Feet 

9  3  ip ?£ 4jO 


TMC  FRIIOENWALD  CO  PHOTO  LITH.BALTO. 


8T 


II  Oif 


.  - 

t  - 


YA8  :  ■ 


f 

JJAiTUO  . 


.»->oi?et  wmo!) 


■  o f* ~  <-*  :‘«<3  '  f- 


Plate  D 


SEWERAGE  (  Mfc-VDLb  COHEN. 

<  F.  H.HAMBLETON. 
COMMISSION  F,  h\RTIFTT 


.  CU-- 


a 

“j”TT 

8 

1 

! 

tnf 

Plan 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

DILUTION  IN  CHESAPEAKE.  BAY 

PLAN  OF 

SETTLING  BASIN,  GATE  HOUSE  AND  OUTFALL 

Jointlj  Presented 

BY 

Rudolph  Hering  and  Samuel  M.Grav 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BA  LTI  MORE  SEWER  AGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER,  1896. 


Front  Elevation 


'frm  jiTP1 


Longitudinal  Section 

SETTLING  BASIN 


Transverse  Section 


Scale  of  Feet 

20  30  4jO 


FT 


Longitudinal  Section  Plan 

Details  of  Outlet  Discharge 


Transverse 

Section 

v* 

y 


n  i 


♦- 


3'  Overflow 


...i- 


3' 


“C 


T 

; - —  - ^  '  -*• 

3 

^  1 

- 1— r— - L 

■i.-X-r-r-r-dr 

~  ~~ - — 

3 

_ i-t 

T  I 

.  I  J  :  _J  l1 

r1  -r^i  Euri 


.  jtor~x  LxrAL'ixx,-, 


Elevation  from  the  Huv 


Plan 


Longitudinal  Section' 


OUTFALL  GATE  HOUSE  ANI)  OVERFLOW 


CHESAPEAKE  BAY 


CHE  SAPEAKE  HAY 


rwc  IRItDtNWAlO  CO  PHOTO  LITH  B»LTO- 


Plate  E 


SEWERAGE 


TtttFRIfDCMWM.0  CO  PHOTO  uni  BMJO. 


£  ' 

fM tift*  ¥  i  :  Kl 


np 


JRBmHMK  3 


xhhu  i  XAay.yn/. 
.AOTHJilM/JUift  \  di)A5l  l  V 

.TT3JTOAH.J.H.  1  >101*.*}  II  <1/ 


©r’L56bi5BG^ri? 

M.  ■  - 


■;,  :..-i 


fl-»W 


ItMlOt! 


1 


J  I  /ran  j,^  7 


JIW  ii ‘'vr.y,  <u !.'•>:;  i  uriJooft  *.n 


Ml  A  H 


flOdnll 


Plate  F 


®3 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CIT  Y  OF  BALTIMORE 


DILUTION  IN  CHESAPEAKE  BAY 

PLAN  OF 


PUMPING  S  T  A  T I O  N 


Screen  Well 


re  cm 


To  Sump 


Section  through  Siphon, Gate  and  Cage  Chamber,  and  Screen  Well 


Jointly  Presented. 

BY 

Rudolph  Bering  and  Samuel  M.Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


Scale  or Feet 


.JONES  FALLS 


Siphon 


Wei  I 


8  6 


Sewer 


54  Siphon 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


f; 


MENDES  COHEN. 
F.  H.HAMBLETON. 
E.L.  BARTLETT. 


Transverse  Section  through  Screen  Well 


Section  through  Engine  and  Boiler  House 


am 


THE  FRIEDEHWAlO  CO  PHOTO  tITH  OALTO 


iimi&a  amenta  **■■**••• 


& 


> 


8T03U051S  3SA 

JHT  *01 


>  »* 

YTMUOO  J30MURA  3MHA  HI  „fI 

dMIWOH«  *1  AM  ,j|  ]• 

Msrwas  oraTsaoffaTKi ,  a>ma> 

■ 

eaawaa  tomtoki  ^ 

^91119891^  yLJftic. 

v« 

/fi*?*).!/.  I  IMCMt'"  C.M,  i.fi  I  i  ”I*( 


aaAP3W32  3WOMir_iAe  -‘ 


3T 


•»e«i,»i3aM3V’o'v' 


■  '  • 

. 


AV-ft 

y 


Plate  G 


1—4 


taa 


LMU»,S 


(  MENDES  COHEN. 
S  K A RAC i h  v  j ,  HAMI n.ETON. 

COMMISSION  I  e.E.HAKTLETT. 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUNDEL  COUNTY 

map  showing 

SEWERAGE  DISTRICTS  ,  INTERCEPTING  SEWERS 

AND 

MAIN  DISTRICT  SEWERS 
Jointly  Presented 

BY 

Rudolph  Her ing  and  Samuel  M.Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  B  A  LTI  MORE  SEWER  AGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


/■ 


!  3  Miles  SSuijUv. 


NOTE 

INDICATES  HIGH  LEVEL.  INTERCEPTORS 
LOW 

AREA  SEWERED  BY  GRAVITY 
•  ■  PUMPING 


/W 


Scale 

1 


I  Mile 


/ 


PATAPSCo 


oat. 
iu_JD0[  \ 
,UUJ0ODOOO[  '• 
loaffiaoamii  * 

[MDOCIQQ . 

iDQQOJr" 

uuuuu^JODOQOt 

moomoogog 


Cipher 


PEODDDm 


JpOQOQQgqQ 

iQQDDDDDDDDG„ 

i“ps 


-7V 


\  AMilfifi  Seulh 


JL 


) 


THE  FR1E0ENWM.D  CO  PHOTO  UTH  ©ALTO 


' i  i 


3TDJ 


VTHUOO  J3CMUf?A  3* 

»»-»WOk{ 

sraroa  y 


►*!« 


v;-.  ry  :,:  ,Ui  .  '  «»**/ 


O.q  yj 


7  MILES  SOUTH 


Platt-  H 


470  4»4 

PROFILE 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


MENDES  COHEN. 
F.H.HAMBLETON. 
15.  L.  BART  LETT. 


Point 


O'  ^ 


NOTE 

DENOTES 


BANKS 

WITH  ROADWAY 
IRON  DISTRIBUTION  PIPES 
VITRIFIED  SEWER 
UNOER-OR  A!  NS 

Farm  buildings 


SCALE  OF  FEET 
20  00 


fVi  ERlDlAN  OF  WASHINGTON  MONUMENT 


FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUNDEL  COUNTY 

MAP  SHOWING 

FILTRATION  AREAS  AT  GLEN  BURNIE 

Jointly  Presented 

BY 

ttndolpli  Tiering  AND  Samuel  M.Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERASE  COMMISSION. 

N0VEMBERJ896. 


MARLE.Y  P.O. 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


— 


Plate  I 


TNCIRItOINWOlA  CO  PHOTO  UTH  BALTO 


Minos  S311N4 


L  yfjslH 


% 


■  : 


YTHL'OO  J3CJi 

‘KM  K  (IX  a  rili  * 


yoriO. 

•  ■  i  -  ...  S 


-  :  • 

r 

“  *»!«>* 


»■> 


Plate  J 


SEWERAGE  MENT)ES  COHEN. 

{  F.  H.HAMBLETON. 
COMMISSION  E.L. BART  LETT. 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUNDEL  COUNTY 

SECTIONS  OF  INTERCEPTING  SEWERS  AND  SIPHONS 
Jointly  Presented. 

BY 

Rudolph  Hertng  Samuel M.dray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


Seale  j^inch  -  1  foot. 


Siphon  under  Jones  Falls 

Low  Level  Interceptor 


Scale  of  Feet. 


J0  20  30  4-0  50  60 


70  80 


Siphon  under  Jones  Falls 

High  Level  Interceptor 

Scale  of  Feet. 

— i t — I - 1_ I 


Butaw  St. 


Argyle  Ave.to  Carey  St 


Eulaw  St  to  Hoffman  St  MulberrySt  to  Gilnior  St. 

WESTERN  HIGH  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


Fayette  St  to  Baltimore  St  Bnsor  St  to  Harford  Ave  MeMechcn  St  to  Hargrove  Al. 

Harford  Ave.  to  Hopkins  Ave  Twenty-first  St  to  Eneor  St 


Siphon  under  Jones  Falls 

EASTERN  HIGH  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


McMechen  SLto  Twenty  Hr  si  St 

Camel  Al  to  M°Mechen  St 


Eutaw  St  to  Camel  Al 


■:~v 


Charles  St  to  Williams  St 


Battery  Ave  to  Clement  St. 

Williams  St  to  Battery  Ave.  Siphon  under  Cross  St. 

YORK  STREET  INTERCEPTOR 


©  © 

Hull  St  to  Garrett  Ave 


Alien  St  to  Hull  St 


Railroad  Tracks  to  Clement  St 


Marshall  St  to  Creek 


Stockholm  St  to  Fort  A\  e. 


Creek  to  Railroad  Tracks 

LOCUST  POINT  INTERCEPTOR 


Fort  Ave.  to  Marshall  St 


Central  Ave.  to  Boston  and 
Windsor  Sts. 


Boston  and  Windsor  St»,  to  |*J  [J  |^J  _ 

uoar  Hm-ris  Creek  Hams  Creek,  IS.TO  feet  westerly 

EASTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR  CONTINUED 


Siphon  under  Horrid  Creek  ysvl 


T 


Harris  Creek,  1250  feet  easterly 


Near  Hurrift  Creek  to  Third  St. 


y  L  Lj  _  „  U  la. 


Stockholm  St  to  Oslend  St  Leadenhall  Stto  ltussell  St. 


Bush  St  to  Putnam  St  OstendStto  Bu&h  St 

WESTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


□  □  □  o 

Stockholm  St.  to  West  St 


□  - Cj 


West  St.  to  Hamburg  St 


Hamburg  St  to  York  St 


a - cr 


it  sled  plate- 
angle 


York  St.  to  Lee  St  Lee  St  to  Balderslon  St 

EASTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


Baldei’ston  St  l  o  Centre  Market 


Centre  Market  to  Front  St. 


Siphon  under  Jones  Falls 


rHf  FRIIDfliWAlD  CO  PHOTO  UTH  8AI.T0 


Plate  K 


- ^.-CALYEATON  RO. _ g "?/**'?**', 


>£f£*  Sr  T  *“  PRATT  ST.  -  —  _ 


'noN.  ~0UfJT  cr  _  >*holun$st.-»*-  can  opt  sr. 


T-  PAYETTE  ST. 


•^CALHOUN ST^LEXINCTONSYr  -CAREY 


■  -  —  MULBERRY 


SCHROEOERST.  -*J»  TIIL  TON  PLACE  ‘^BRAOLf TST.^MUNfrCEORCE  CLINTON  AYE*  A  YE  *• H0FFY1AN  ARCYLE 


*f-  —  —  BIDDLE 


||| 

11 


3'h"  trraflte  0009 


WESTERN  HIGH  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


*033  ST  HOtTAAO 

■h-  ST  -yNMi/ITfNTSlHf-  - 


-  PARA 


—  —  —  —  -  *  DOLPHIN  ST.  •YRVTrER  A  L^+AHYAlAf  -  -  AIT.  ROYAL 


1 Wfc  NEC  HEN  37* 

JiS 


—  NORTH  RYE.  —  -  "t  BAR  CL  AY  3TA^ 


EASTERN  $IGH  LEVEL 


INTERCEPTOR 


EASTERN  HIGH  LEVEL  I  NTERCEPTOR  -  CONTI NUED 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUNDEL  COUNTY 

PROFILE  OF  INTERCEPTING  SEWERS 

Jointly  Presented 

BY 

Rudolph  Her iri£>  and  Samuel  M .Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


-  LEADEN H AIL 


^BALOERSTON  4*g3J- 

fcfl  l«A  !  * 


— - - WATER 


r 

— 

EASTERN 

AYE.  — 

— 

T 

Si 

! 

i 

sr  —  +■ 

-  — 

— 

ALICE 

« 

k' 

S 

k- 

#> 

$ 

5 

a 

i 

*L 

k 

k 

i 

*» 

* 

* 

k 

•> 

* 

1 

i 

1 

5 

Si| 

*> 

k 

•> 

1 

t 

V 

* 

5 

Jg 

a 

ss 

1 

2 

& 

<0 

S 

EASTERN  LOW  LEVEL  I  NTERCEPTOR  -  CONTINUED 


WESTERN  LOW  LEVEL  INTERCEPTOR 


ALTERNATE  PROFILES,  LOCUST  POINT  INTERCEPTOR 


—  CLtNCNT 


NOTE 

ELEVATIONS  OF  SEWERS  REFER  TO  CENTRE  LINE 
HORIZONTAL  .  IOOO  FEET  TO  \  INCH 


VERTICAL 


50 


wMmssms&mm 


TRt  FRIIDtMW*  LO  CO  PHOTO  LITH  BALTO 


PUriPtNC  STATION 


• 

.3tyroiujDJI  qrau*!  ^nifnh  l!j  <331  1 

aOA)I3V7Mf 


.toHoo  eami 


.  MOTH  J  BM  AI 1 .  H 


/TTHJ'THAH.J.  yOlletd 


Plate  L 


FOR  THE 


CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUN DEL  COUNTY 

PLAN  OF 

PUMPING  STATION 

Jointly  Presented 


Lj  » 

noon 


Her  mo'  and  Samuel  M.Gray 

•  RS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION 

NOVEMBER  ,1896. 


Section  through  Coal  Room, Boiler  House, 

Gate  and  Cage  Chamber,  Sub-drain  Pump  Room, etc 


Coal  Room 


MENDES  COHEN 
EH.HAMBLETON. 
E.L. BARTLETT. 


SEWERAGE 

COMMISSION 


Main 


fSlphooTLOrato 


Purnp  Suction  Conduit 


'  Stack 
116”  Diam. 
k  Core  A 


Economizer 


Cross  Section  lhroug*h  Engine  House  and  Screen  Well 


A  sites 


Coal  Hoorn 


SI LaP  lor  Screenings 


Screen  Well 


Bath  Room  I 
I  andW  C- 


^Stairs  to  Screen  Well 


Room  for 
Hoisting  Engine! 


Main  @S  Engine  EE  Room 


Longitudinal  Section  through  Engine  House  and  Entrance  Hall 


iiptaieors 

Office 


Entrance  Hall 


*  ub-Draiiia; 
Pump  lUn 


A8”  Ventilntor 


Subjl)rauui^c 
PiiijipWell ; 


Screen 


STOCKHOLM 


1/  5>r>T.  J > ruin 


Section  ttirough  Gate  and  Cage  Chamber  and  Screen  Well 


Storrn  Drain 


rn 

1  i 

i  i 

os 

1 

E 

[ - f 

4  J 

III 

H  T* 

r — 

.! 

[ 

1  ,,, , ...I  BB.uffij 

1 

(0 

Si  ;  ifJ  S| 

A 

Jfi  o  1 

o 

o  1 

F.'JlS&l 

fo  ST*™*  dl 

TMCrfHCOEMVhlD  CO  PHOTO UTM  8AU0 


' 


■ ; :  • , :  : 


e?  A  M 


T'K“UM<jiq  VSOIT/, 

WO.  UL  l&ucfu 


.dQ& 


Plate  M 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 

GENERAL  MAP 

SHOWING  OUTLINES  OF  FILTRATION  PROJECT 

Recomm  ended 

BY 

Rudolph  tiering  and  Samuel M. Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWEFIAGE  COMMISSION 

NOVEMBER,  1896. 


Bowley  Bar. 


■Green  Marsh  Pt. 


Turkey  Pt. 


CiCox  Pt. 

.Wetherby 


5ASIN 


Booby  I. 


iNortl 


'*T  WES  T 


fi^oy  <r£:d  i  fir ' ' "  *  S'  \ 


MONU / 


Stansberry 


TtMc.Hecur 


Witchcoate  fV 


CovkT 


3815 


Porter  Bar 


Drum  P*-. 


Rocky  Pt. 


")  Lynch  Pt. 


*Avond  alf 


B  rooJtP’ri 


i?5>Widl  J 


R  1  V 

Cuckold  Pt. 


.ovells~Ft? 


So  Her  Pt.  \ 


CRAIG  HILL  CHANNEL 
REAR  LIGHT 


S I  ed  d  s  Pt 


Lea  d 


Ft.  Car  roll  Light 


Hathaway  I 


Hawk  in  Pt 


Sparrow  Pt 


a  f  n  u  t  Pt 


North  Pt 


CRAIGHILL  CHANNEL 
FRONT  LIGHT 


relhaxa 


Ltllll, 


Stony  Pt. 


White  Rock  {, 


Rock  Pt. 


KNOLL 


SEVEN  FOO  ' 
LIGI 


Bod  ki  ip  Pt 


MENTDES  CIOHEN 
F.H.HAMBLKTON 
E.I..HARTLETT. 


[Jacob 


'rfktfJKPCO  PIIOTuUTM  B*. 


//Vr /ILL  //V  I  rS/SJ  ri  L.  C>  fT 


Plate  N 


D  RAINFALLS 

cities  of 

§(TIMORE,and  mSHINGTON 

in  the 

MARYLAND 


:  25  years  or  more. 
>iled  from 

Weather  Review 


F?ate  or  Rainfall  in  Inches  per  Hour 


8 


0 


MENDES  COHEN. 
F.H.HAMBLETON. 


SEWERAGE . 

COMMISSION  E.L. BARTLETT 


Plate  N 


(. 

J- 

— 

— 

— 

fr£~a — 

XT 

' 

► 

-A- 

• 

-  -.q, 

u 

>i±L 

(A-  « 

3\,5 

5^~ 

,  o,9a 

—7r4 

..  \* 

qX 

•  \Or 

LQJh- 

1 

.  N 

A 

r 

• 

V 

U*0 

l . .1 

"  pm 

» . 

I  \ 

ft 

>* 

,.lT 

Xue* 

wl9* 

* 

• 

\ 

vi 

a4A° 

,  A 

/ 

c 

1$' 

I  _ 

• 

►  * 

> 

- A 

w 

>0  • 

*  ^ 

* 

A  . 

18^ 

*4 

I  \ 

\v 

MA 

a  \* 

&* 

< 

\X 

<• 

> 

• 

V 

!v 

A  A 

vv 

\< 

f  w 

l 

?  • 

4 

» 

N 

h\<^‘ J 

Kp 

/ 

ft.1 

^  \1 

IS 

T 

‘d10 

1  4  1 

*ttV1 

\1 

1 

i'i  • 

• 

• 

W 

r/ 

*C - 

tP,J 

lo  F 

rp 

\  < 

• 

• 

>r’ 

,p»»* 

Vi  ? 

t  J 

'  A 

i?^ 

r*~  — 

Q 

wr\'A 

f 

V 

> 

< 

< 

>  4 

* 

i 

• 

%  |7W 

*  ^4 

e»r^ 

aY 

1^1 ' 

i 

\  • 

V  , 

• 

• 

< 

i 

f3 

fv 

&w" 

$ 

• 

. $i 

P  ■"  '  — 

N  t 

4 

• 

► 

< 

1 

""  •v.  ■ 

,  « 

i 

• 

4 

► 

c 

■ 

•  • 

i 

1 

r 

< 

•  » 

• 

• 

4 

( 

i 

i 

• 

9 

£2: 

i /uDe. 

• 

< 

» 

i 

v/V£ 

- 

^ — 

— 

— 

—4— 

ri^n 

MN« 

EXCESSIVE  RAINFALLS 

in  the  cities  of* 

PHILADELPHIA,  BALTIMORE, and  WASHINGTON 

and  in  the 

STATE  of  MARYLAND 

during  the  past  25  years  or  more. 

Compiled  from 

The  Monthly  Weather  Review 


trt 


\|1K 


w 


-A 


A  10  30  30  40  50  I 

MINUTES 


HOURS 


2  3  4 

Duration  or  Rainfall  in  Hours 

PREPARED  FOR  THE 

Sewerage  Commission  ofthe  City  of  Baltimore 


THE  VRIEOEUWALD  CO-  PHOT0-LITH,8alT: 


Plate  O 


(  MENDES  COHEN. 
SRICERAOE  F.  H.HAMBLKTON. 

COMMISSION  I  E.L.BARTLETT. 


M- 


:n  v 


-ij- 


t  <■  }  |  * 


i  - 


I _ j:: 


_  -S3  - 4-- 


NOTE 


BANKS  ANO  ROADS 
SUOPLV  PIPES  UNDER  PRESSURE 
VITRIFlEO  DISTRIBUTION  PIPES 
TILES  ANO  VITRIFIED  DRAIN  PIPES 
O  MANHOLES 
19  SAND -SUMPS 
ELEVATIONS  ARE  ASSUMED 


_  =  = 


■-I- 


v 


-  ■  - 


I 


- , - 


■i - 


- { 


n: 


- 11 


•  "1 - 


i  * 


-  \  ~ 


-+■ 


; 


-4- - 


’  1  J 

- 1 - 1!  i' 


CENERAL  PLAN 

SCALE  :  300  FT.  TO  I  IN. 


_ / 

— 

K  a. 

>r 

— 

n.  iQS.tS 

j 

- ^ - ■ —  *1 

□ - 

u 

J*  ■ 

. :d 

T— 1 - 

1  ■  “V. 

J  -  -V 

3  - - L 

SECTION  OF  BANK  M-N 


PLAN  OF  MANHOLE  A 

SCALE  :  6  FT  TO  I  IN. 


SEWERAGE  PROJECTS 

FOR  THE 

CITY  OF  BALTIMORE 


fOHCt  PIPE  I 

upocp  pfttiiuni  i 


FILTRATION  IN  ANNE  ARUNDEL  COUNTY 

GENERAL  DETAIL  PLANS 

SHOWING  METHOD  OF  CONSTRUCTION  OF 

FILTRATION  BEDS 

Jointly  Presented 

BY 

Rudolph  Herln£>  and  Samuel  M.Gray 

CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  TO  THE  BALTIMORE  SEWERAGE  COMMISSION. 

NOVEMBER, 1896. 


SECTION  OF  MANHOLE  B 

SCALE  6  FT.  TO  I  IN. 


*.  I).  u,o  -lilt 


I  7  Ft  l|  Oar.f. 


Blof «  il  i 


-  ROADWAY 


PLAN  OF  BED  X 

SCALE  CO  FT.  TQ  I  IN. 


Q  — 


— ^aaxEO 


SECTION  P-Q 


SECTION  N-O 


PLAN  OF  SAND-SUMP  D 

SCALE  ‘  6  FT.  TO  I  IN. 


Concrete 

— i 


fOPCC  pi  pc  uhocp  I  pressure 


SECTION  OF  MANHOLE  C 

SCALE  G  FT.  TO  I  IN. 


FRrtDfNWALD  CO  PHOTO  UTH  BALTO 


4 


i 


